On Jan 13, 5:35 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> On 13.01.2012 22:39 Craig Weinberg said the following:
> > 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."
> >> Evgenii --http://blog.rudnyi.ru
> > He assumes that consciousness is a simulation from the start though.
> Yes, he assumes that conscious experience is created by the brain, so
> you may call this simulation. Well, experiments shows that it takes
> about a quoter of a second to make conscious experience formed, so it
> seems to be reasonable.
> > 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.
> If you mean that senses exist independently of conscious experience of a
> person, then you are probably close to panpsychism. Such a possibility
> is discussed in the book as well:
Yes, close. Panpsychism is a little fanciful. It could imply that
rocks have human like awareness. I'm talking more about a continuum of
sense which scales qualitatively, so that something like a human
psyche would be as far from the sensorimotive content of minerals as a
human brain is from a rock. What I suggest is a primitive private
quality along the lines of participation in a contagious sense of
holding and releasing - the experience associated with electromagnetic
> p. 321. Alternatively, no such new arrangement of the existing laws of
> physics and chemistry will turn out to be possible. The fundamental laws
> of physics themselves will need supplementation. It is difficult to see
> how new fundamental laws could come into play only during biological
> evolution, or they would not be fundamental. So it is probably
> inevitable that any theory which seeks to account for consciousness in
> terms of fundamental physical processes will involve panpsychism . That
> is to say, it will be a theory in which the elements of conscious
> experience are to be found pretty well in everything, animate or
> inanimate, large or small. To most people this prospect will seem even
> less palatable that that of consciousness in computers or brain slices.
> But the state of our ignorance in this daunting field is so profound
> that we should rule out nothing a priori on the grounds absurdity alone.
> Bear in mind the absurdity of quantum mechanics!
Yes, I don't find it absurd at all. I think it's a lot more credible
than quantum physics since we experience it directly ourselves.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at