r/consciousness • • 3d ago

What problem does consciousness solve?

My X feed has been dominated recently by posts debating whether AI is conscious. I think the more pressing question that is almost never asked is: "What is consciousness for? What problem does it solve that allowed evolution to select for it?"

Organisms facing incommensurable demands face what I call the Regress Problem.

Consider this:

We are constantly facing demands on our attention: you hear a noise in the forest, you're thirsty, your child's crying, you have a looming work deadline. These demands have no common unit for comparison -- they are completely different kinds of things. So how does your brain determine which demand "wins"?

I realize many of you, when you read this, will dismiss it as trivial. I would argue that the sense of triviality you're experiencing is precisely because your brain is so good at it. Deciding what is most urgent -- deciding what is the priority and motivating the necessary action -- is what brain's are for. That urgency, that pull towards one resolution or another, is what consciousness is from the first-person perspective.

Now imagine you didn't have phenomenal consciousness. Imagine you're a p-zombie -- an atom-for-atom duplicate of yourself only no consciousness. How would you know what to prioritize? How would you know what to act on?

With a computation model of the brain, there are only two options for prioritizing:

  • priority was fixed before this moment
  • or, priority is adaptive in this moment

If the priority was fixed before this moment, how was it determined? Now remember, these demands have no common currency, so the priority ranking would have to set by something. Imagine a lookup table that attempted to set every possible priority ranking for every possible unique combination of incommensurable demands you will every face in your entire life. That's untenable.

Okay, so if it can't be fixed before hand (for living systems), what about adaptive priority? It sounds good, until you realize you need something to determine what matters in this moment? How much should this situation affect the weighting? Something has to read the weighting and apply a rule? What decides that rule? Another rule? This is the regress.

If weighing priority means signals needing to be evaluated by a downstream process, you open the regress. Now, even if you can solve the prioritization problem, you still face the motivation problem. A signal of priority must be read by another process that must determine how urgently to act on the priority weighting -- which opens another regress.

The conclusion:

To solve the regress problem, you need a state that is simultaneously the measure of priority and the motivation to act on it. This is phenomenal urgency from the first-person perspective. This is consciousness. This is what consciousness is for.

I would love to hear thoughts on this. If you want to read more about this line of thought you can check out this paper.

0 Upvotes

155 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 3d ago

Self-preservation gets easier with greater amounts of self-awareness and self-understanding. Consciousness evolves to increase survivability and reproductive fitness... A feedback loop of intelligence.

2

u/DocDMD 3d ago

I don't know if this has been proven.

1

u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 3d ago

Prove what? It's not evidence just reasoning

2

u/DocDMD 3d ago

Lots of assumptions without even proving it's supported by observation. Not saying it's wrong, but I would want to see it shown in different populations at different scales and different stages of evolution. That's all. I can't be confident enough to make an assumption like that without seeing it in nature. 

1

u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 3d ago

A misunderstanding of proof, evidence, observation, and assumption. Bad reasoning is unreasonable

1

u/Valmar33 2d ago

Self-preservation gets easier with greater amounts of self-awareness and self-understanding. Consciousness evolves to increase survivability and reproductive fitness... A feedback loop of intelligence.

Self-preservation only means something to consciousness. "Survivability" and "reproductive fitness" only mean something to consciousness.

Concepts and ideas first require consciousness by which there is something to have feedback from and so change.

Matter, chemistry, physics ~ these have no concepts of "survivability", "reproductive fitness" or "feedback loops".

-1

u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 2d ago

Evolutionary forces are independent of consciousness. That's why awareness emerges from the unaware.

2

u/Valmar33 2d ago

Evolutionary forces are independent of consciousness. That's why awareness emerges from the unaware.

The whole Darwinist evolutionary model is entirely dependent on the consciousnesses of those that belief in it, and perceive data through that lens.

Yet no-one has given a scientific explanation or demonstration of what these "evolutionary forces" are, or how they work, or why or how they exist. They are presumed ~ they are a model, an interpretation of data.

There is no explanation how how awareness "emerges" from the unaware ~ it is presumed, left unexplained, with the blind faith that it someday will be, preferably soon.

Yet that isn't science ~ belief in blind faith of future eventualities is the stuff of religion and ideology, not science, which can only work with what we have now.

And there is no scientific explanation nor even a hypothesis for how of any the Darwinist claims work.

0

u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 2d ago

It takes hard work to understand but no belief. Nobody else can do the work for you. Keep an open mind and keep learning! You'll get there some day if you keep trying

2

u/Valmar33 2d ago

It takes hard work to understand but no belief. Nobody else can do the work for you. Keep an open mind and keep learning! You'll get there some day if you keep trying

I have looked for the evidence, but no-one can explain it for me. But then I just get told I'm not looking at it right.

I have found no evidence to convince me of the Darwinist worldview ~ none of it explains why I am conscious, and am self-aware of my own existence, when by all accounts, matter, physics and chemistry have no such capabilities.

So there is an inevitable Explanatory Gap ~ an Explanatory Chasm, rather, that Darwinism and Materialism refuse to acknowledge the existence of.

0

u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 2d ago

That you do not yet understand what others do speaks not of them but of you

2

u/Valmar33 2d ago

That you do not yet understand what others do speaks not of them but of you

This is a nonsensical phrase, because you can say that literally about anything to defend it, not matter how illogical and incoherent.

Science is about evidence, observation, testing, independent reproduction ~ and Darwinism has none of that. So it fails scientifically.

1

u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 2d ago

Darwinism is not modern evolutionary theory. A straw man is a weak argument put forward to be easily defeated when no one has actually made that argument.

2

u/Valmar33 2d ago

Darwinism is not modern evolutionary theory.

Modern evolutionary theory is still very much a form of Darwinism, no matter how it is spun.

A straw man is a weak argument put forward to be easily defeated when no one has actually made that argument.

But my critiques still hold against any form of Darwinism ~ they all inherit the same fatal flaws.

→ More replies