The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 8:21 am
But science goes far beyond describing what we find. It explains why and how things got to be the way they are. It posits things not present, not capable of being sensed (iow not directly empirical things) and how these lead to what we experience.
I think you will find that the 'why' in the above sentence is wholly redundant.
anonymous66 wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 7:12 amThere are a lot of conscious humans.... But, what of conscious animals? Is their consciousness an advantage?
I see some conscious animals and some that don't display signs of consciousness (mirror test). It seems to me that animals without consciousness are doing quite well.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 8:21 am
But science goes far beyond describing what we find. It explains why and how things got to be the way they are. It posits things not present, not capable of being sensed (iow not directly empirical things) and how these lead to what we experience.
I think you will find that the 'why' in the above sentence is wholly redundant.
1) that's all you responded to? 2) sure, but then the 'how' is also redundant in that sentence, since the 'why' covers that ground and we could leave it instead. Why does not just mean 'why did someone or something do things that way?'
Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2018, 8:21 am
But all this is a digression from his use of why. He could have used how and his main point is still interesting. Since we can imagine all the functions of animals being performed as non-conscious mechanisms, how did conscousness arise in evolution. The utterly determined chemical machines of animals do not need internal experience, they simply need to have those traits that lead to successful proceation. It would seem like awareness (consciousness) is simply an emergent byproduct.
His question has more to do with the zombie issue in philosophy.
Thank you. I'm pursuing multiple lines of inquiry, but one of them is definitely: Why do have/need that inner experience (qualia) that we refer to as consciousness? It does seem as if all evolution is concerned with is behavior.
Uummm... don't you think that homo sapiens has accomplished somewhat more than the median among earth inhabitants?
It is easier to keep animals down (hunting, domestication) then raising them up (training, genetic engineering). But don't worry, it's coming (if it isn't here already).
There are a lot of conscious humans.... But, what of conscious animals? Is their consciousness an advantage?
I see some conscious animals and some that don't display signs of consciousness (mirror test). It seems to me that animals without consciousness are doing quite well.
Every observable being's group has, by definition successfully passed on it's genetic material to get here. That in and of itself, is a very low bar. Though you bring up a very good point. Namely that while consciousness is a prerequisite for planetary domination (as I alluded to), that it alone is not sufficient (as you pointed out). Of course we are beneficiaries of countless generations of human activity, many of which didn't confer much benefit to individual humans (as compared to wild animals), so our perspectives are biased and don't necessarily represent the history of the human experience. Similarly, species who express consciousness may as a group not be as "successful" as other instinct based groups, depending on the definition of success. However, most would agree that individuals within those groups have the potential (depending commonly on circumstances beyond their control) for much more fulfilling lives than individuals without it.
I think you will find that the 'why' in the above sentence is wholly redundant.
1) that's all you responded to? 2) sure, but then the 'how' is also redundant in that sentence, since the 'why' covers that ground and we could leave it instead. Why does not just mean 'why did someone or something do things that way?'
Without 'how' there is no science.
If you want to know why go to church.
"WHy" is just a legacy from a time when people believed everything happens for a reason, and that reason what God's.
Assuming two things: 1. we are consciousness, and 2. We are evolved animals, then there is nothing else to explain consciousness. What other mechanism, other than the differential survival of variations (evolution), is operating?
Consciousness must be understood before it can be explained. Starting from scratch I have tried to understand the status of the brain in a world that requires a good deal of knowledge to prevent death and provide necessities. The brain is enclosed within a bone hollow and its only access to the outer world is through nerve impulses from the sense organs. There must be a fundamental genetic fund of information that the brain possesses to sort out somewhat what these impulses mean and the brain gradually builds up some kind of model as to what is going on. Each individual brain has a different set of experiences so the model we each construct must have some similarity but with individual differences. The brain not only constructs this theoretical model but places itself within the model much as a chess piece represented the player on a chess board. This piece that moves within the theoretically constructed model is the consciousness and it knows only the model the brain constructs and not what we might regard as outside reality. That is why a hypnotized person can "see" what is suggested because the consciousness does not see "reality" but merely the brain construction. This is the Socratic cave in which we each live where we regard the "shadows" we perceive as the real world which is far more complex and alien than the simplified brain model. Nevertheless it contains sufficient information for us to survive and reproduce. Science is the process we use to make the model we know simulate whatever may be outside but that model must be continuously modified as we learn more - which is why science will never end its search because our sense systems are unaware of the bulk of what might be called reality.
Well consciousness is not always present in evolutionary beeings. Some animals cannot recognize themselves in mirrors. What if a living beeing without a consciousness has less realistic pains than other beeings and is without consciousness capable to react by far better than with consciousness. Intelligence is a certain advantage especially if youre capable to use tools, but is it always a superior mechanism in surviving natural pregiven settings ?