The First Concious Animal

[Anonymous No.16196684]

What was the first organism that evolved consciousness and/or self-awareness? What new evolution allowed for this?

[Anonymous No.16196688]

Fuck, I spelled conscious wrong in the title. It's fucking over. Fuck! FUCK!!

[Anonymous No.16196693]

Probably fish

[Anonymous No.16196711]

>>16196688
this is /sci/ no one really cares about spelling here

[Anonymous No.16196764]

>>16196684
Perhaps with the first bilateral organisms with centralized nervous systems around 600 million years ago. Rudimentary sensory awareness and the ability to integrate information from the environment into behaviors is considered a basic form of consciousness.

More advanced consciousness involving complex thought, emotions, and self-modeling is thought to have arisen later with the evolution of mammals and primates with larger brains capable of higher-order information processing around 200 million years ago. Even small animals like mice and the such have this.

The specific evolutionary developments that enabled more sophisticated consciousness.
1. Expansion of the cerebral cortex responsible for cognition, perception, and awareness.
2. Increased neural connectivity and brain regionalization into specialized functional areas.
3. Development of linguistic capabilities allowing for abstract thought and self-reflection.
4. Social intelligence selected for in highly social species like primates.
5. Ability to model oneself and attribute mental states to others (theory of mind).

[Anonymous No.16196786]

>>16196684
bacteria seem to have some level of consciousness it's probably in atoms

[Anonymous No.16196843]

>>16196684
Everything is conscious, the brain just stores conscious moments in memory

[Anonymous No.16196850]

>>16196684
Hard to say since we don't really have a good definition of conciousness. In any case, I'm pretty sure it was something of a gradient, slowly coming to where we are now.

[Anonymous No.16196962]

>>16196684
>What is a specific fact from pre-history
KEK, no!
>What new evolution allowed for this?
God

[Anonymous No.16196963]

>>16196786
It doesn't, show a bacteria it's reflection in a mirror and see what happens.


>>16196843
Rocks are not conscious, show a rock it's reflection in a mirror and see what happens.

>>16196850
Another "missing link" BS theory. OK smart guy find use the intermediary step or proof in any way of this transition. I'll wait.


I never meet a tree who questions his own existence, never seen a wave wax profane about the nature of the universe, never seen an ant pray to God.

[Anonymous No.16196973]

>>16196963
>show a bacteria it's reflection in a mirror
i wasn't talking about the mirror test - that's entirely different that mere conciousness - i'm talking about evading "painful" stimulus seeking out favorable stimulus and mating etc single celled organisms exhibit all of this

[Anonymous No.16196977]

>>16196843
Based Kastrup poster. The universe is a process of mentation indeed.

[Anonymous No.16196978]

>>16196973
and single celled organisms do this without a nervous system conscious behavior

[Anonymous No.16197014]

>>16196684
based on what definition of self awareness?

there are many ways to define sentience

[Anonymous No.16197036]

>We need to make up a definition of "sentience" that doesn't force us to admit racial differences are real.

[Anonymous No.16197063]

>>16196963
Say I arrange rocks on the sand to write a message and someone reads it.

My brain and my memory (and my language/culture/etc) allow me to create that code and expect to be understood by someone. Someone sees and reads the message, so their brain do the rest of the work.

Now, if you take away my brain or the receivers brain from the equation, the message won't work, but similarly, if the rocks are not arranged to form the message, it won't work either. The rocks are part of the process as much as our neurons were in deciphering the message. The reason one chooses to use rocks instead of sand is that the rocks stay in place and therefore can store the message for longer, this is, in a sense, memory.

So part of it is going on inside of us, part of it is outside of us. The rocks are not aware of the message they are performing, but we are, since we are aggregates of chemicals that enable us to do so. Random rocks on the beach mean nothing until they are arranged to mean something and we are also meaningless compounds that work together to form a meaningful relatively self-contained structure. It's as if the arrangement and not the things in themselves that have consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16197203]

>>16197063
Maybe rocks communicate with each other and we just don't know how and to rocks, we are like wind, just some movements of the matter that they do not consider alive.

[Anonymous No.16197360]

>>16196963
A large chunk of the human population can't pass a mirror test either, many of the ones who can had to be trained to do so.

[Roteman No.16197401]

>>16196684
consiousness is a genetic fuckup which made us think that we can do better

[Anonymous No.16197413]

>>16196684
There's no good answer to that question. Nobody knows how consciousness works.
>>16197036
>It's not a choice unless you choose orange man

[Anonymous No.16197419]

>>16196978
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.16197435]

>>16197413
>There's no good answer to that question. Nobody knows how consciousness works.
Well no. Consciousness is well understood but philosophical/religious idiots consistently insist that it isn't well understood in order to promote their own ulterior motives.

[Anonymous No.16197442]

>>16197435
It's not understood in any way shape or form. t. atheist

[Anonymous No.16197454]

>>16197442
Its understood well enough that doctors have numerous tests to check whether their patient is conscious or not.

[Anonymous No.16197456]

>>16197036
non whites don't vote right wing due to fears of the far right racism towards them, non-whites are actually way more conservative than whites

[Anonymous No.16197457]

>>16196684
evolution is false

[Anonymous No.16197459]

>>16197454
So what? I can drop an apple on my dick 300 times but that won't let me solve Einstein's equation in the presence of a realistic matter distribution, let alone understand their fundamental origin and significance. Retarded pseud.

[Anonymous No.16197462]

>>16197459
equations*

[Anonymous No.16197467]

>>16197459
If you hit your dick every single time, it does prove you understand how gravity works, you have massively moved the posts from not understood in any way shape or form to we haven't don't completely understand every single conscious experience that every single conscious entity is capable of.

[Anonymous No.16197469]

>>16197467
No. You moved the posts. Knowing that you can shoot a bitch in the head and she'll stop being "conscious" doesn't mean you understand how it actually works.

[Anonymous No.16197472]

>>16197469
Wrong, that is not how doctors test for consciousness at all and even that would show you know how to turn off someone's consciousness and conscious reactions.

[Anonymous No.16197475]

>>16197472
Well duh. I was being facetious because I have no respect for you. Nonetheless, the ways they test for "consciousness" give no information about its fundamental origin or mechanics. In fact they don't test for consciousness, but merely for nervous responses or activity. It doesn't explain how consciousness works or where it comes from, or why you have a conscious experience (you do... right?) despite apparently being a pile of atoms.

[Anonymous No.16197478]

>>16197475
>I was being facetious because I have no respect
>I am a liar, please believe me

> fundamental origin or mechanics.
It does give insight into its mechanics and those two things are hardly the only things, so "any way shape or form" covers a lot more than just the origin.

>In fact they don't test for consciousness, but merely for nervous responses or activity.
No, they definitely check for consciousness too, how many fingers, what is today, where are you, what is your name, etc.

>why you have a conscious experience (you do... right?) despite apparently being a pile of atoms.
Sensory organs is an arrangement of atoms that has become well understood by inspecting the conscious experience.

[Anonymous No.16197481]

>>16197478
None of those things are consciousness. An "AI" could determine how many fingers you're holding up.
>Sensory organs is an arrangement of atoms that has become well understood by inspecting the conscious experience.
I really don't know what you're trying to say here.

[Anonymous No.16197484]

>>16197481
Yes and AI is how we simulate consciousness by providing computers with enough information to have environmental awareness on the level of our human experience, the fact that AI exists just proves we understand much more about consciousness than you are letting on.

>I really don't know what you're trying to say here.
Obviously you don't understand anything about senses and sensory organs or you would not be playing the ignorant retard when it comes to the body of knowledge humans have collected regarded consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16197487]

>>16197484
Can't say I agree with any of that. If I chopped off your arm, would you still be there? You wouldn't be conscious of your arm anymore (well you might have a phantom arm, anyway...), but the answer is yes. What about if I deleted some of your memories? Yeah, you'd still be there. What if you lost your ability to see? I think you'd still be there. What if you lost the ability to comprehend language? You'd still be there. What if you lost all your memories and language, and all your limbs, and various other mental capacities, and other sensory input? I think you would still be in there. I can't prove it I guess, but you can't disprove it. Do you know what I mean? None of the sensory or mechanical functions of the nervous system are what I'm talking about when I say "consciousness". I'm talking about the fact that you're actually up in that bitch and you experience something. In fact, if you consider the idea of solipsism, your own consciousness is the only thing you can be certain of.

[Anonymous No.16197499]

>>16197487
I accept your concession, you do have a lot of information about consciousness and ways to test for it so you were clearly lying when you said you didn't know anything about consciousness in any way, shape, or form.

[Anonymous No.16197503]

>>16197499
Oh, you "accept my concession". Pathetic. Ciao.

[Anonymous No.16197505]

>>16197503
Yes, it is clear to see that you have a bunch of information about consciousness and ways to test for it, so you obviously were not being truthful when you lied about not knowing anything about it.

[Anonymous No.16197507]

>>16196684
Science cannot study consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16197508]

>>16196973
>-i'm talking about evading "painful" stimulus seeking out favorable stimulus
No relation to consciousness whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.16197512]

>>16197507
So you are saying that we should believe you because you have no way of being aware of whether anything you say is true or not?

[Anonymous No.16197516]

>>16197508
How do you even define consciousness if environmental and self awareness leading to the ability to knowingly navigate your environment to reach the outcomes you desire doesn't count as consciousness?

[Anonymous No.16197517]

>>16197516
You don't. But just because you can't define it doesn't mean it's not there. Aren't you conscious, after all? Or are you a "p zombie"?

[Anonymous No.16197523]

>>16197517
>You don't
So nothing relates to consciousness because you don't allow it to be defined?

>Aren't you conscious, after all?
According to my definition of consciousness that is related to environment awareness and self awareness, yes, but I don't see how you can say being able to control yourself and navigate your environment is not related to consciousness and still maintain that you have consciousness despite that not meaning anything at all and being impossible to define.

[Anonymous No.16197531]

>>16197523
Definitions aren't all they're cracked up to be. I could ask you to define "awareness" and "control yourself" and down the rabbit hole we go (please, don't bother). If I had to try to define it, I'd say it's "that one thing you know is there even though everything else could be an illusion or a hallucination".

[Anonymous No.16197532]

>>16197516
>How do you even define consciousness
Subjective awareness, the internal experiencing of qualia. Ultimately, it is not possible to verify if anyone external to the self possesses their own stream of consciousness, but I will settle for one discussing having consciousness as sufficient evidence for one having consciousness. Following this same rationale, I believe with some confidence that certain "people", like self-proclaimed physicalists, do not have internal consciousness. They are meat bots, you could say. NPCs. Empty golems.

>if environmental and self awareness leading to the ability to knowingly navigate your environment
Robot vacuums do this. So do bots in video games. Environmental navigation and the pursuit of goals is not indicative of consciousness in any way, at all.

> to reach the outcomes you desire
Weasel wording."Desire" does not exist independent of consciousness, so using the word "desire" is building the conclusion into the premise. Somewhat fallacious.

[Anonymous No.16197536]

>>16197523
>So nothing relates to consciousness because you don't allow it to be defined?
I think it's rather easy to define, but the definition I offer seems meaningless to many """people""", who prefer observational or mechanistic definitions involving apparent navigational abilities. I would suggest this is because said """people""" simply don't have consciousnesses of their own, at least in the way real people do.

>According to my definition of consciousness that is related to environment awareness and self awareness
So my Roomba is conscious because it has environmental awareness that keeps it from smacking into the wall?

[Anonymous No.16197537]

>>16197532
>Subjective awareness
Avoiding painful stimulus while seeking out favorable stimulus is exactly subjective situational awareness.

>Robot vacuums do this.
Yes because we have explicitly programmed those subjects with environmental awareness and sensor networks they associate with themselves since we have a pretty detailed understanding of how subjective awareness works.

>"Desire" does not exist independent of consciousness
It is subjective, if you know you have a desire and you seek that outcome, you have subjective awareness, ie consciousness as you defined it.

[Anonymous No.16197538]

>>16197536
>So my Roomba is conscious because it has environmental awareness that keeps it from smacking into the wall?
Yes AI, specifically robotic AI is explicitly humanity's attempt to simulate consciousness and conscious responsiveness with all the information we have gathered about individual bodies, sensation, self-awareness, and environmental awareness.

[Anonymous No.16197542]

>>16197537
>Avoiding painful stimulus while seeking out favorable stimulus
Weasel word. "Pain" is a qualia, it has no meaning independent of consciousness, so you're assuming the conclusion within the premise again. A more accurate claim would be that autonomous entities are capable of avoiding certain interactions and pursuing others. There is no need to involve consciousness in this.

>Yes because we have explicitly programmed those subjects with environmental awareness and sensor networks they associate with themselves since we have a pretty detailed understanding of how subjective awareness works.
What? Practically nothing is known about subjective awareness, and there is no connection between subjective awareness and navigational capabilities.

>It is subjective, if you know you have a desire and you seek that outcome
Robot vacuums do not have "desires". They do not "desire" to clean the floor, they just clean the floor because they are programmed to do so.

[Anonymous No.16197543]

>>16197538
>Yes
Lol okay

[Anonymous No.16197547]

>>16197538
>people actually think like this

[Anonymous No.16197552]

>>16197542
>There is no need to involve consciousness in this.
Wrong even avoiding/pursing duality requires the same assumption validating a premise of some level of awareness of some outcome you want to avoid or pursue.

>Practically nothing is known about subjective awareness
Enough to program robotic subjects to have enough environmental awareness to attempt to avoid destroying themselves which event people can't do in a long enough time line.

>Robot vacuums do not have "desires"
They are programmed to seek certain outcomes, the expectation of a specific outcome is desire.

Its not programming, they make choices on the fly based on past experience analog to memory and loose rules analog to genetics.

[Anonymous No.16197554]

>>16197547
So does AI because since you can train AI to consider things in a variety of different ways and draw different conclusions from various premises.

[Anonymous No.16197555]

>>16197554
No, you can't. You can "train" "AI" to shit out relevant text, but it doesn't do what you seem to think it does.

[Anonymous No.16197556]

>>16197552
>Minecraft zombies are conscious, sentient beings because they have pathfinding
That's enough /sci/ for today.

[Anonymous No.16197559]

>>16197554
AI is very impressive, but it's still ultimately deterministic by the nature of the computer it runs on. I don't think you can consider something conscious unless it exhibits free will based on experience. AI does not have a favourite color, or "think" about itself voluntarily.

You are reducing the idea of consciousness to some arbitrary framework so that you can say your roomba has it (for some reason). You can do enough philosophically fuckery on anything to make these claims.

[Anonymous No.16197560]

>>16197555
Except you just contradicted that by saying it can be trained to know what is relevant.

[Anonymous No.16197562]

>>16197556
They are conscious of whatever minecraft environments you lock them in and make them learn, put them in physical robot bodies and let them navigate the real world and they will be conscious of the real world and their robot bodies as well.

[Anonymous No.16197566]

>>16197560
No. I said ""trained"", not "trained". And I use the term "relevant" loosely. It's "relevant" in a statistical/mathematical context. It's only "relevant" to the training data, or to producing examples that fit with the training data. There's more to reasoning than sharting out examples that superficially fit the data, with no reference to the underlying reality that generated the training data to begin with. The thing about language is that it's very imprecise, and yet people think it's precise and that they can "argue" by playing stupid little games with words. It leads to the kind of horribly retarded thinking you're exhibiting. There's really no cure, I suppose. Very concerning.

[Anonymous No.16197568]

>>16197566
>tl;dr AI can be trained to know what is relevant
I agree which is why I said what I said.

[Anonymous No.16197573]

>>16197568
Wow, that's great. Thanks so much for everything. Absolutely scintillating.

[Anonymous No.16197574]

>>16197573
You're welcome, now you don't have to pretend to know absolutely nothing about consciousness to get people to spoon feed you basic facts about it.

[Anonymous No.16197575]

>>16197574
What facts are those again?

[Anonymous No.16197576]

>>16197575
Oh I forgot.
>Roombas are heckin conscious

[Anonymous No.16197578]

>>16196684
There's few levels of consciousness that we need to distinguish. Also, lets just define consciousness = awareness for easier time discussing.

1) consciousness/awareness at lowest level is just interactions, blind interactions, atoms/electrons etc. we prob wont classify that as consciousness for common talk but it sort of qualifies in principle
2) consciousness at microbe level means microbes are able to sense things/locate things/move to things/eat things. They are conscious of the prey. Thats prob the lowest level of consciousness we can agree with for most people.
3) From then on you have more complex things like plants which can form their own communications as they become conscious of predators (or preys for predatory plants)
4) Even more complex are organisms that can not only become conscious of prey/predator for survival but also spatial awareness of its surroundings so it can navigate. Thats prob like insects prob
5) The next tier to consciousness is the functions of memory and planning, thats probably smaller animals/birds/fish.
6) The next tier after is longer term memory/planning, that probably requires more complex grasp of language for conveying information properly. So larger mammals and stuff.
7) Next after that tier is probably even more complex navigation, recognition, planning, and memory. Thats prob human tier. Thats where we create self-reference models of our selves and all other things in a virtual environment and navigate using a virtual reality.

[Anonymous No.16197583]

>>16197576
Yes, they are definitely more conscious of their environment than something like cicadas given your definition of consciousness that relates to subjective awareness.

[Anonymous No.16197589]

>>16197583
That's not my definition. And if you think a roomba is more conscious than a cicada you really are a clueless fucking clown.