This has been interesting. I posted the original question, i.e. How does consciousness arise from inorganic material, and the responses have been increasingly diverse. While there has been a bit of topic drift, which is to be expected, I have come to the conclusion that most responders are right, they're just right about different aspects of the problem.
The first response was from Mark, who responded off-list. He started his studies to determine this very question and ended up with a PhD in brain science. He stated, correctly, that much of what we consider the be consciousness is based on the structure of the brain itself. i.e. There are enough synapses, placed in the proper order, to facilitate this. That could be explained by evolution.
Next up was Dan, who described the four levels of quality, which definitely applies here. Perhaps more than he realizes. We start with inorganic, which describes the structure involved. From there, we go to biological, which explains more than just how two cells rub together and produce an outcome that's more than the sum of their combined qualities. At that point, he arrives at the social, which is central to the argument, imho. Apparently, the primary difference between humans and apes is our ability to work together to overcome adversity. It appears that apes are too competitive to allow that to happen. However, the social aspect wouldn't be enough to define or describe consciousness. Chickens have a social order, and I don't think anyone would claim that chickens are conscious, at least the way we like to think about it. The final determiner seems to be the intellectual. This is the real difference. The intellectual level appears to provide us with the ability to join together for mutual benefit. We have the ability to realize that it's to our benefit NOT to knock our neighbor in the head and take what he or she has. In fact, it's to our benefit to stand with that neighbor to prevent someone else from knocking him/her in the head. i.e. We have the ability to project beyond the immediate. I think that's probably what makes the difference. Perhaps what I'm saying is that what we consider to be 'consicous' is the ability to foresee consequences beyond the immediate.
Humans appear to be the only animals capable of that. I may be wrong, (it's happened before) but even with animals that store food, (squirrels leap to mind here, and ants) I get the real sense that they're doing it from an instinct, rather than rational thought that there is a possibility of shortage later.
This perspective also considers the moral aspect of quality. It's in our interest to ensure that others of our tribe do well also. At the base of it is species survival. We're hardwired for that, I think. It explains why those who violate that precept are universally reviled, regardless of culture. Humans protect pregnant humans, unless they've been socially conditioned not to. Well, enough rambling.
To close, I propse a definiton of consciousness as: "The ability to foresee consequences beyond the immediate."
Comments? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
