Questioning Consciousness

[minime]

[jakell]

I haven't read everything here but I assume this fits in well...

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality
we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions — sights, sounds, textures, tastes — are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it — or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion — we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.

Getting at questions about the nature of reality, and disentangling the observer from the observed, is an endeavor that straddles the boundaries of neuroscience and fundamental physics. On one side you’ll find researchers scratching their chins raw trying to understand how a three-pound lump of gray matter obeying nothing more than the ordinary laws of physics can give rise to first-person conscious experience. This is the aptly named “hard problem.”

On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them. Experiment after experiment has shown — defying common sense — that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

So while neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, all roads lead back to the observer. And that’s where you can find Hoffman — straddling the boundaries, attempting a mathematical model of the observer, trying to get at the reality behind the illusion. Quanta Magazine caught up with him to find out more.
....
But how can seeing a false reality be beneficial to an organism’s survival?

There’s a metaphor that’s only been available to us in the past 30 or 40 years, and that’s the desktop interface. Suppose there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not. But those are the only things that can be asserted about anything on the desktop — it has color, position and shape. Those are the only categories available to you, and yet none of them are true about the file itself or anything in the computer. They couldn’t possibly be true. That’s an interesting thing. You could not form a true description of the innards of the computer if your entire view of reality was confined to the desktop. And yet the desktop is useful. That blue rectangular icon guides my behavior, and it hides a complex reality that I don’t need to know. That’s the key idea. Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviors. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be. If you had to spend all that time figuring it out, the tiger would eat you.

The part you bolded there would have been the bit I would question, so you've saved me a bit of typing.

I would say that it is hardly a remarkable statement that the brain filters out enormous amounts of data and leaves us with a thin sliver that is more relevant to our survival and possibly to our mental wellbeing too. any of our ancestors (human or not) would have had to do the same thing, otherwise they were less successful at passing on their genes and dropped out of the genepool. Being an evolutionary necessity, this would have become pretty hardwired.

I wouldn't go as far to say that it filters out 'The Truth' though, or that it 'hides' stuff from us, it should all be available if we were to look hard enough whilst at the same time trying to avoid the madness that may come from trying to casually collate it all at once.

These evolutionary filters tend to mostly preclude consciousness though and seem pre-conscious to me, already developed by the time we started to develop consciousness. It could be said that it is consciousness that enables to revisit those filters and to tweak/enhance/diminish them if we wish.. a later development.

[slimmouse]

I would say that it is hardly a remarkable statement that the brain filters out enormous amounts of data and leaves us with a thin sliver that is more relevant to our survival and possibly to our mental wellbeing too

Ive tried to suggest somewhere in another thread, that this is indeed one of the most remarkable aspects of being human.

Who the fuck actually knows what exists within the energy that we dont see, other than maybe the Shaman and other such brave adventurers?

[82_28]

These evolutionary filters tend to mostly preclude consciousness though and seem pre-conscious to me, already developed by the time we started to develop consciousness. It could be said that it is consciousness that enables to revisit those filters and to tweak/enhance/diminish them if we wish.. a later development.

Fuckin' well said. I was just thinking about possibly the same thing. I used to try and get my dogs and cats to laugh or get a joke. Maybe they did laugh but I was too stupid to notice how they laugh or something. Dogs and cats can make humans laugh, why cannot we do it for them in turn?

[82_28]

I remember this time when I was very young and my dog never watched the TV. It was as if he couldn't even see it. And then some show came on and it was about peacocks and he started barking at the screen. Speaking of peacocks the thing that always made me feel sorry for them at the zoo was that they are constantly screaming HELP! They're the most "free" animal in a zoo! They don't got no cages but are free to roam around.

[jakell]

I would say that it is hardly a remarkable statement that the brain filters out enormous amounts of data and leaves us with a thin sliver that is more relevant to our survival and possibly to our mental wellbeing too

Ive tried to suggest somewhere in another thread, that this is indeed one of the most remarkable aspects of being human.

When I say it is unremarkable, I mean that it very likely applies to most of the animal kingdom too, not just to humans. we have an extra layer though that enables us to speculate on it. It is this extra layer (consciousness) that is remarkable, not the filters.

Who the fuck actually knows what exists within the energy that we dont see, other than maybe the Shaman and other such brave adventurers?

[jakell]

These evolutionary filters tend to mostly preclude consciousness though and seem pre-conscious to me, already developed by the time we started to develop consciousness. It could be said that it is consciousness that enables to revisit those filters and to tweak/enhance/diminish them if we wish.. a later development.

Fuckin' well said. I was just thinking about possibly the same thing. I used to try and get my dogs and cats to laugh or get a joke. Maybe they did laugh but I was too stupid to notice how they laugh or something. Dogs and cats can make humans laugh, why cannot we do it for them in turn?

I remember this time when I was very young and my dog never watched the TV. It was as if he couldn't even see it. And then some show came on and it was about peacocks and he started barking at the screen. Speaking of peacocks the thing that always made me feel sorry for them at the zoo was that they are constantly screaming HELP! They're the most "free" animal in a zoo! They don't got no cages but are free to roam around.

On my previous forum, when we got around to discussing this issue, and looking at consciousness from an evolutionary point of view, we inevitably got around to discussing whether animals are conscious or not.

I stated, for the purposes of argument, that they are not. Not because this isn't possible - who's to say that, a lemming for instance, didn't develop consciousness at one time and even continue with this through it's lifetime? - but they don't display it collectively as a species and pass ideas from one to the other and ideas from generation to generation.
Only because it isn't demonstrable do I put it aside, no real evidence. (apart from Gerald that is)

We get various anecdotes involving pets showing conscious awareness and I would say that this is possible, but they don't go out and transmit it to others and develop this into something more, again the cases are isolated. It's also very interesting that these are nearly always involving (strong?) contact with humans and therefore it could be said that we are the source of this ability, and animals need us as a trigger, it's not inherent in them.

[slimmouse]

I find that Dennis Mckenna has some very interesting ideas WRT the nature of how we define consciousness.

Plants and nature in general, from which we eventually are created dont have the squeaky noise method of communication. To me it appears more simplistic in that they do it all chemically.

And yet, since this is from where we came, who is smarter?

[DrEvil]

^^To be fair, squeaky voice is only one way we communicate. We also use body language, gestures, facial expressions and pheromones.

Trees obviously can't do most of those things, but they can use pheromones to warn each other about dangerous critters, giving them time to start producing "anti-bodies". Who knows what else they "talk" about, and how long such a conversation takes. No need to hurry if you live for centuries.
(I doubt they're discussing philosophy, but it's a fascinating thought anyway).

There's also the concept of microbial intelligence:

Microbial intelligence (popularly known as bacterial intelligence) is the intelligence shown by microorganisms. The concept encompasses complex adaptive behaviour shown by single cells, and altruistic and/or cooperative behavior in populations of like or unlike cells mediated by chemical signalling that induces physiological or behavioral changes in cells and influences colony structures.

Complex cells, like protozoa or algae, show remarkable abilities to organise themselves in changing circumstances.[1] Shell-building by amoebae reveals complex discrimination and manipulative skills that are ordinarily thought to occur only in multicellular organisms.

Even bacteria, which show primitive behavior as isolated cells, can display more sophisticated behavior as a population. These behaviors occur in single species populations, or mixed species populations. Examples are colonies of myxobacteria, quorum sensing, and biofilms.

It has been suggested that a bacterial colony loosely mimics a biological neural network. The bacteria can take inputs in form of chemical signals, process them and then produce output chemicals to signal other bacteria in the colony.

The mechanisms that enable single celled organisms to coordinate in populations presumably carried over in those lines that evolved multicellularity, and were co-opted as mechanisms to coordinate multicellular organisms.

Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacob research group at Tel Aviv University which developed a fractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle[2] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).

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

Edit: Greg Bear's 'Vitals' is about this subject. It's not his best by a long shot, but it's pretty short and worth a try.

[Sounder]

Thanks to all, this is a good read after a night out on the town. (I bet it will make even more sense in the morning.)

[82_28]

I've come to look at all smiles as a primate expression. You can see the "chimp" in us in smiles. Like my sig says and the reason I have kept it for so long, love has to come from somewhere. Yet what is love? It really is complex as fuck. It just seems us humans overthink shit because we're capable of it. I don't think it's online anywhere, but I wrote something like late last year called "Why do Birds Seem to Hate Us" after a span of time in which I tried to save a wild bird.

I loved that little bird. It died. Because of cats which I in turn loved. And then went on to ironically grill steak. But I have always wondered why I was so focused and obsessed over this on a small bird. How is it I came to "love" it? I did. I loved the bird. I loved the cat that killed it. As I spoke with some "expert" about the bird he told me it was because his/her siblings hated it and were pushing it out of the nest. Where the hell does this come from?

[jakell]

Whenever I hear the word 'love' in a context where serious discussion may ensue, I remind myself that I need to reread M. Scott Peck's 'The Road Less Travelled', which I recall looked into the subject a little more deeply that the usual fuzzy feelings/ideation that that word evokes.
I mainly recall this from it:

If I may take this further.. I am recalling something I read in M. Scott Peck's 'The Road Less Travelled' where he muses that the larger part of romantic love is very likely a necessary fog on the overactive human mind that enables us to continue as a species.
The reasoning being that, if we were to think too closely (or even at all) about the practicalities and personal commitments of producing and rearing children, we would very likely have far fewer, and so the human species, especially when child/adult mortality was much higher, would very likely have gone extinct.

So there we have the unlikely bedfellows of romantic love and evolutionary biology addressed at the same time, not a bad encapsulation....

..which is something I hadn't come across before. Certainly there are different forms of love, and he looks at these quite closely, I would say that our attitude to animals and pets falls under the sentimental variety, as there is no parity between the parties (please excuse the alliterative pun), no real meeting of minds and not much chance of equal reciprocation.

The idea of Love in humans though fits well in this subject, and could be said to consistent with the phenomena of consciousness, certainly plenty has been written and said about it, which is a sure sign. The above mentioned Lemming(s) may have written on it, but it hasn't been unearthed yet and even Gerald, who has got as far as Aristotle, may have some way to go,

I looked up his Greek BTW, here's the untranslated version (because I'm a tease):

"Η ζωή είναι ένα αγγύρι (αγγούρι), η γυναίκα είναι τη (το) ποδήλατο"

[slimmouse]

If I may take this further.. I am recalling something I read in M. Scott Peck's 'The Road Less Travelled' where he muses that the larger part of romantic love is very likely a necessary fog on the overactive human mind that enables us to continue as a species.
The reasoning being that, if we were to think too closely (or even at all) about the practicalities and personal commitments of producing and rearing children, we would very likely have far fewer, and so the human species, especially when child/adult mortality was much higher, would very likely have gone extinct.

Well theres clearly lots of love around just now, cos apparently the place is way overpopulated when you listen to those, who not surprisingly it seems dont have much love for anything, except perhaps fucking us all over.

[Pele'sDaughter]

I would think that knowledge is actually what sets us apart from other animals. Initially, we would be like the others utilizing information passed genetically as well as "direct perception" by contact with plants and other animals. Direct perception is a term I found reading Stephen Harrod Buhner's The Secret Teachings of Plants: The Intelligence of the Heart in the Direct Perception of Nature and means receiving information from the plants themselves. Let's just presume this is accurate. This method of acquiring information would be pure and unambiguous. At some point here comes language, a program, that has to be installed in every new human. With language came knowledge which is information that has been, uh, enhanced and is now a story instead of a perception and, thus, man the story teller is born. Along with language and enhanced information came the possibility for lies and, thus, the virus, the mind parasite, or whatever you want to call it was born. And, wow, has it ever been successfully controlling humans ever since.

[minime]