To ask "why" consciousness is possible implies a final cause (teleology). I support evolution by natural selection and there is nothing random or teleological about that.psyreporter wrote: ↑November 27th, 2021, 12:05 amThat is not a valid statement because when it concerns an explanation for consciousness, it concerns the question why consciousness is possible and that means that it will concern the question why for example the indicated 'exteroreceptors' and 'interoceptors' have been able to come into existence.Belindi wrote: ↑November 26th, 2021, 7:13 pmScience can explain consciousness.
There are exteroreceptors which are organs that receive nerve stimuli from the environment outside the body. And there are also interoceptors which are organs that receive stimuli from inside the body. In cephalic animals such as humans , both of these types of receptors send afferent nerve signals to the brain.
The brain itself is not furnished with any receptors at all. If it were so equipped then brain receptors could send afferent signals to whichever part of the brain does the cephalising. In this hypothetical case there would be no so-called problem of consciousness as the brain and the mind would be as much of a unit as is a finger joint and its sensation, or a bit of gut and its sensation.
It would be magical thinking to argue that the core qualities of life and thus of consciousness as manifestation has arisen out of pure randomness, and further, to think that a moment in time is the origin of life in its actuality today, with life today essentially being 'passed on' like a fire originating from that moment in time.
Simple logic indicates that life requires an 'external origin' ('external' being external from an individual perspective, with the whole of what is deemed possible within the scope of empirical reality, being an individual perspective).
The idea that consciousness originates from something that can be explained empirically, e.g. de brain, requires determinism to be true. The determinism vs free will debate is not a settled debate, which is evident from the website debatingfreewill.com (2021) by philosophy professors Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso.
The main argument by Free Will Sceptics is the following:
To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest. ~ The Guardian
(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion
As can be seen from the reasoning by Free Will Sceptics, only the idea that mind has a primary role in nature could prevent a belief in determinism.
Scientific evidence for the idea of “a primary role for the mind in nature” is mounting from several angles. For example, recent quantum physics studies through experiments have shown that the observer precedes reality (the scientific “observer” = consciousness = mind).
(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers
How observers create reality
https://psyreporter.com/pdf/arxiv-quantum-observer.pdf
(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life
(2021) Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?
If it is proven that consciousness plays a causal role in the universe, it would have huge consequences for the scientific view of the world, said Kleiner. “It could lead to a scientific revolution on a par with the one initiated by Galileo Galilei,” he said.
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
(2019) Quantum physics: objective reality doesn’t exist
Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-p ... oesnt.html
If by "why" perhaps you mean how consciousness could be naturally selected. Consciousness , as we know from universal experience, is subjective so that each individual has privileged access to his own consciousness. There is advantage to the species of privileged access . Humans are a species of which the individuals learn from experience . Learning from experience is greatly enhanced when individuals compare experiences and ideas and so progress the general knowledge of the species. Obviously that process needs also language . Humans have the necessary anatomy for the phonetics of spoken language.
At this point you may ask "What about mynah birds and parrots?" I understand these and other species of birds are very intelligent. Birds do however lack opposable thumbs.