On Jan 13, 3:54 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
> > On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
> >>> We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining its
> >> Darwinian advantage)
> >> There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian advantage
> >> so it must be a byproduct of something that does have that virtue,
> >> and the obvious candidate is intelligence.
> > That's not so clear since we don't know exactly what is the relation
> > of consciousness to intelligence. For a social animal having an
> > internal model of ones self and being able to model the thought
> > processes of others has obvious reproductive advantage.
> > Brent O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others
> > see us. --- Robert Burns
> In my favorite book on consciousness (by Jeffrey Gray) there is chapter
> 7 "A survival value for consciousness" that is summarized on p. 90:
> "Whatever consciousness is, it is too important to be a mere accidental
> by-product of other biological forces. A strong reason to suppose that
> conscious experience has survival value in this. It is only by appealing
> to evolutionary selection pressures that we can explain the good fit
> that exists between our perception of the world and our actions in
> dealing with it, or between my perceptions and yours. Biological
> characteristics that are not under strong selection pressure show random
> drift which would be expected to destroy the fit. I assume, therefore,
> that consciousness has a survival value on its own right. That rules out
> epiphenomenalism, but leaves us with a problem of identifying the casual
> effect of consciousness in its own right."
> By the way in the Gray's book the term intelligence is not even in the
> index. This was the biggest surprise for me because I always thought
> that consciousness and intelligence are related. Yet, after reading the
> book, I agree now with the author that conscious experience is a
> separate phenomenon.
> Well, if to speak about evolution in general, then another quote from
> the book has stroked me:
> "For the good fit between conscious experience and outside reality, the
> idealist philosopher Berkley called in God. In this more materialist
> age, it is Evolution that we must thank."
He assumes that consciousness is a simulation from the start though.
If you do that, then it seems meaningful that the simulation fits so
closely with reality, whereas if you understand that sense is what
reality is made of, then it's not a surprise. If consciousness has a
survival value, then surely omniscience, teleportation, or the ability
to turn into a diamond on command would have an even greater survival
value. What he admits is the problem of identifying the casual (?)
effect of consciousness in it's own right is not a problem, but a
symptom of failing to see that causality supervenes upon sense and not
the other way around. Cause and an effect are a kind of sense, arising
from subjective memory, pattern recognition, and world realism.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at