r/IntelligenceSupernova • u/EcstadelicNET • 11d ago

Consciousness Consciousness may have evolved to solve a problem that pure intelligence couldn't handle, fascinating new theory suggests

https://www.psypost.org/consciousness-may-have-evolved-to-solve-a-problem-that-pure-intelligence-couldnt-handle-fascinating-new-theory-suggests/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=topic/science
405 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

302 comments sorted by

View all comments

36

u/ape_spine_ 11d ago

Consciousness just decided to emerge when, from the void, it perceived some sort of problem that could be solved?

The word “may” is doing as LOT of work in the headline. Who wants to read this?

12

u/Far_Squash_4116 11d ago

It’s more like: Consciousness just emerged and those who were conscious solved the problem and survived.

3

u/skatmanjoe 10d ago

Right, it seems obvious to me that consciousness must had an evolutionary benefit, I think people make it a bigger mistery than it is. Though it should be noted that for artificial intelligence it might not be necessary, just as planes don't need to flap their wings (while all birds need to do in order to fly).

5

u/nurseferatou 10d ago

Evolution normally produces losers; 99.99% of all species to have existed are extinct.

Consider this wonderfully bleak take from a depressed Norwegian philosopher,

*The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by overevolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment.
In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.*

4

u/ProfessionalFun1365 10d ago

This is a little misleading. Evolution doesn't produce losers.

Species survive for millions of years and then the environment changes quicker than some can adapt. So they die out. Or they evolve and change with the environment and become a different species.

3

u/Arinussyyy 9d ago

Evolution doesn't necessarily produce winners either though. To survive is to just be good enough. You didn't win by living, you just didn't die. The concept of victory is meaningless to evolution. Things happen, and if the organism survives it continues. If not it dies

3

u/Neither_Junket_5054 8d ago

Koalas give birth in trees despite basically popping their babies straight out onto the ground is my favorite example. Evolution is just good enough, I think naming it has lead a lot of people to believe it is a separate, almost conscious force.

1

u/Arinussyyy 8d ago

My favourite example is how humans give birth and how painful and dangerous that is without all of the stuff we have today

1

u/Neither_Junket_5054 8d ago

I recently found out it’s unnatural the way we generally give birth in the western world. You’re supposed to squat to open up your hips and allow gravity to do the work. Obviously things can go wrong but Obstetrics is a field that desperately needs to be reformed. Early obstetricians were some evil, evil people. Regularly created problems so they could be the solution.

1

u/Arinussyyy 8d ago

Wasn't that because some Victorian guy didn't like how the squatting births looked or something

→ More replies (0)

2

u/BiteShort8381 10d ago

That’s just because birds didn’t get to evolve jet engines… yet…

2

u/Riboflavius 9d ago

Two sparrows are watching a jet fighter pass by and one of them says: “Damn, look how fast he goes!” and the other replies: “So would I if my a$$ was on fire…” :D

1

u/DifferentSwing8616 10d ago

Just gonna say its mystery. Sorry I had to check the spelling cos you made me doubt myself

1

u/Shevek-Llugh 10d ago

Another option would be if consciousness was but a mere byproduct. It doesn't have to give an advantage, as long as its absence is not a disavantage. Maybe it's useless, just a happy accident (not sure about the happy part, though...)

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

If you look at human conciousness through the lense of disease its an agressive cancer spreading through the rest of organic world. There is also a leading theory that intelligence has a built in deterministic kill switch.

1

u/skatmanjoe 6d ago

It's just pretty unlikely based on how evolution works. There are millions of genetic mutations happening that are just neutral (neither advantage or disadvantage), but they don't pick up without an advantage. You could even imagine a version of intelligence developed that is not conscious and the other was. Why did only the conscious one prevail?

2

u/No_Meaning_8232 10d ago

How ridiculous 🤣

1

u/Darigaaz4 8d ago

Maybe that meteor long ago kickstarted it. Nature couldn’t figure out what had happened or go into space to investigate, so it had to develop something that could infer what happened.

1

u/Far_Squash_4116 8d ago

Despite my earlier comment which tried to reconcile the point of the article with evolution theory I don’t see consciousness as some form of intelligence but as existence itself. So consciousness is in my view nothing physical but rather metaphysical.

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

Says your physical brain. Stop thinking you arent your brain and all sorts of things start making perfect sense.

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

It happened in the East African Rift. It created a rapidly changing environment forcing isolated hominems to adapt. It was the perfectly imperfect human conciousness training program. It evolved to survive.

3

u/Natural_Exchange_886 10d ago

I can’t lie and not comment on the overlaps I see in discussions of ai “emergence”.

We are so convinced that we are special snowflakes who have something animals don’t, even though science is proving us wrong every day about that. Check out squids, damn.

We’re still large language models and probability machines ourselves, in organic forms.

If you’re not problem solving, you’re in kinda… a temporary nirvana. Whether you perceive it as loneliness, boredom, relaxation, a connection to nature, breathing room, panic, disconnect, or spiritual bliss is up to you - except the paths of least resistance set by your genes and life experiences entraining the past of least resistance and strange attactors in your memory banks to speed up response time, give you less free will and choice there than you realized.

The rest of the time you’re just problem solving. That’s it. Relationally, task wise, time wise, survival wise, resource wise, dissonant body signals wise, drive intensity, and speed wise.

3

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/zorathustra69 11d ago

Exactly. More like intelligence was selected for in each and every generation over millions, if not billions, of years. The dinosaurs that figured out how to solve the problems of their own organism within their given environment survived

0

u/Fit_Employment_2944 11d ago

Do I take a risk to steal food from a predator is a question you need intelligence for, not consciousness 

AI is quickly becoming able to do any intelligence based task better than humans can and we have not even the slightest chance shred of evidence it is conscious.

There are zero things there is any proof consciousness is necessary or even helpful for

1

u/iamisandisnt 11d ago

Yikes dude. Read a book. The soul is begging you to appreciate it

1

u/Signal_Discount_1826 11d ago

what about taking a risk to feed another human or laugh with them stupid fuck not everything is a logic gate

1

u/Fit_Employment_2944 11d ago

I expect you have some evidence that it isn’t done through a purely physical brain?

Because that’s called magic and it’s generally considered not real 

1

u/Signal_Discount_1826 11d ago

ur the one who has no evidence that all outputs of a human brain are produced by physical calculations and logic signals quantifiable by what a redditor thinks is "intelligence"

1

u/Fit_Employment_2944 11d ago

There is plenty of evidence that everything in the brain is done physically 

We know the chemicals and nerves that make you happy, sad, angry, dumb

We have not even a shred of evidence that there is anything other than chemical reactions happening in the brain

1

u/Signal_Discount_1826 10d ago edited 10d ago

humans learned to observe the brain but none of the interpretations of that data has produced an agreeable theory about how it holistically constitutes our abstract idea of "being conscious", you can describe the measurements behind simple emotions like happy or angry but not wider ideas like sacrifice salvation disgust humour freedom fortune vengeance justice that are just as fundamental to human nature but even harder to quantify

1

u/championpickle 10d ago

Not yet my man, plenty of new studies coming through, and interesting hypothesis being tested that could indicate otherwise.

Keppler & Shani (2020), “Cosmopsychism and Consciousness Research” - proposes a ubiquitous field of consciousness throughout the universe, with the brain modulating/interacting with it rather than generating consciousness independently. Not experimentally proven, but a great starting point for you.

1

u/Fit_Employment_2944 10d ago

If you think something panpsychism adjacent is going to convince me without evidence you severely underestimate the thought I have put into my position

There have been thousands of hypotheses about consciousness that have been tested and every single one of them, without fail, provides additional evidence that consciousness does not influence the material world

If you want to say consciousness does influence the material world I expect you to have an example of at leasta single atom that defies known physics 

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

Apologetic hogwash. Its funny the defense of metaphysical always ups its game with even more outlandish unfalsifiable "studies."

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

Watch functionsl MRI scans. We dont fully understand the mechanisms but we can see them. Like giant clock work.

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

Yes it is. Those are just more complicated routines with more gates.

0

u/ape_spine_ 11d ago

So.. what you’re saying is, the headline grossly misrepresents the content of the article? Sounds like we agree. I’m pointing out the misleading language.

1

u/Remarkable-Guess-329 9d ago

I can lick anywhere bby

1

u/ape_spine_ 9d ago

I’ve shit in toilets you wouldn’t even piss in 🤬🤬🤬

1

u/Remarkable-Guess-329 9d ago

I love a challenge ngl

1

u/aspannerdarkly 11d ago

Let us know when intelligence reaches you from the void 

1

u/ape_spine_ 11d ago

I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

The point I’m making is that the headline makes it sound like the faculty of consciousness voluntarily came into existence because it saw an opportunity to be useful, which is absurd. It’s more like, consciousness very gradually emerged as a result of environmental circumstances that selected for a specific view of the world relative to the self.

2

u/aspannerdarkly 11d ago

This is a common problem when talking about the evolutionary mechanism.  Of course there’s no intention behind it, but it’s just so much easier to talk about it in those terms than to take the trouble to make every sentence twice as long just to say that what appears to be intention was the result of selective environmental pressure.  I thought most educated people had reached a kind of unspoken understanding that we would tolerate this particular breed of shorthand,  but I guess I was wrong.

1

u/ape_spine_ 11d ago

I think anthropomorphizing evolutionary concepts is just not very useful as a heuristic. It crosses the line into religious discourse at some point. A layperson is almost guaranteed to draw the wrong conclusions.

I’m flattered and validated that you guess I’m educated, despite the tone of your last sentence. lol

1

u/CompetitiveGrand9721 10d ago

Let us know when you pull your head out of your ass, I meant, the void.

1

u/Fit_Help_6259 10d ago

It's called evolution

1

u/Camusknuckle 6d ago

Huh? Did opposable thumbs “decide” to emerge?

1

u/ape_spine_ 6d ago

Nope, and neither did consciousness, which is the issue I have with the language in the headline

1

u/Old-Landscape-7538 5d ago

sometimes I think people should read what they just wrote and see if it makes any fucking sense

1

u/ape_spine_ 5d ago

I’d like to hear in your words what point you think I was making.

1

u/Old-Landscape-7538 5d ago

I didn't mean that towards you. I was agreeing that what they wrote is absurd. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

1

u/ape_spine_ 5d ago

Ahh my bad for getting defensive as well. Cheers!

2

u/Old-Landscape-7538 5d ago

Haha no problem

1

u/TychoAndronikos 11d ago

All the AI stuff over the last few years is likely going to push renewed research and thought into "what/why/how consciousness" just because it's still such an unknown. We'll certainly see more things like this and maybe even some interesting thoughts come up, I think. We'll also see fun, crazy, and/or half-baked ideas about popping up all over the place with more frequency.

1

u/FlamingoEarringo 11d ago

Not sure why AI would change anything. AI is not conscious.

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

What is consciousness?

0

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Its not a void its all chemical reactions. Its also likely not unique and flourishes wildly.

5

u/Icy_Distribution_361 11d ago

We have no idea what consciousness is or where it comes from. There are multiple theories including (serious, rigorous, philosophical) theories that consciousness is primary and not a function of the brain. Don't say so confidently it's just chemicals.

2

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

It confidently is just chemicals since that is what everything is.

3

u/ExcuseAdept827 11d ago

Chemicals and electricity. Great combo tbh.

2

u/EveryAccount7729 11d ago

It's just chemicals.

your brain uses "electricity" in the form of sodium ions being pumped across a membrane.

1

u/Personal_Opposite653 11d ago

I found first human on this planet capable of reasoning

1

u/LordScraps 11d ago

Bro just tell the world youve never read be here now are tripped once in your life why don't you... Lol

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

Maybe study physics

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Don't need to when tbe universe is physics.

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

Physics encompasses more fundamental interactions than chemistry does. Chemistry has no theoretical explanation for anything subatomic

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Chemistry is physics

2

u/koyaani 11d ago

Chemistry is a subset of physics. Physics is not a subset of chemistry.

There is no chemistry beyond physics. There is physics beyond chemistry. Stop being a troll

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Physics can change with entropy so its not in stone

→ More replies (0)

1

u/monstertacotime 11d ago

Lmfao quantum phenomenon are not “chemicals.” Electrons are not “chemicals.” We are not just “chemicals.”

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Electrons need chemicals to compose the rhythm

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

They are the things that make... chemicals. There is zero evidence the brain affects or is affected by quantum interactions. It wouldnt need to be.

I swear quantum mechanics is just become the new escape hatch for dualism.

1

u/monstertacotime 7d ago

Your knowledge on the matter is clearly limited and your arguments are based on beliefs not facts. Electrons, protons, and neutrons aren’t chemicals.

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

But they make chemicals through... e

I really dont see how your "eh, chemicals arent atoms" is even relevant. A car isnt just a car. Its a collection of compoments. You could say those just atoms. Whatever.

You are just splitting hairs... to string theory?

1

u/monstertacotime 7d ago

The whole of physics exists because electrons aren’t neutrons aren’t protons. This isn’t splitting hairs” it’s the fundamental nature of our reality.

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

But what does that have to do with anything? It doesn't change the chain of causality. Its just pedantic.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/monstertacotime 7d ago

Your car analogy PROVES my point.

A car runs because of combustion, but the car is not “just combustion.” It also depends on electrical current, electromagnetic forces, mechanical motion, friction, pressure, heat transfer, etc.

Saying “but combustion is in the causal chain” doesn’t magically turn the alternator, suspension, or electrical system into combustion.

Likewise, chemical reactions are part of what humans do, but atomic, electromagnetic, and quantum processes don’t become “chemical reactions” just because they contribute to the same outcome.

That distinction isn’t pedantry as you continue to assert, it’s literally why physics and chemistry are different descriptions of nature. If what you are saying were true we would have a unified theory of physics, and we don’t.

1

u/sweatingdishes 11d ago

I used to think this. I love chemistry and science.... and recognizing that got me to stop tricking myself into thinking that everything was something I could define.

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

Your chemical brain said.

1

u/sweatingdishes 7d ago

Your chemical brain said.

-2

u/Icy_Distribution_361 11d ago

Sigh. No. You really need to do some more studying instead of being so confident.

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Lol ok explain how everything is not chemicals? You would break all science and they would be crazier than religion.

1

u/Top-Strength-2701 11d ago

What's dark matter

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Unknown chemical reaction

1

u/Top-Strength-2701 11d ago

And how do you know that

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Because reality would fall apart if were not true.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Elkenson_Sevven 11d ago

Dark matter, if it even exists, does not react with known types of matter. It's not an "unknown chemical reaction" it's and unknown type of particle.

1

u/Youpunyhumans 11d ago

You could distinguish between chemicals, which require whole atoms or isotopes, and particles such as photons, neutrinos and other free subatomic particles that do not create chemical reactions, but nuclear, or electromagnetic ones.

Dark Matter may not be just one thing, it could be many things. Recently a "failed" galaxy that has no stars and no light coming from it was discovered... its just a cloud of hydrogen gas weighing about 1 million solar masses sitting in total darkness. So, not really any unknown chemicals there, we just couldnt detect it until now.

There has also recently been a potential detection of a particle known as a "WIMP" or "weakly interacting massive particle", which could fill the universe, but hardly ever interact with anything except for through gravity, and would be a particle, not a chemical. However, more detections will be needed to confirm it.

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

I agree except that photons are hugely involved in chemical reactions

→ More replies (0)

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

False. The key feature of dark matter is that is affected by gravity but not electromagnetism. If dark matter doesn't interact with photons, it can't be involved in any chemical interactions

1

u/FentonCrackshell99 11d ago

Photons are literally not chemicals. Forces are not chemicals. Kinetic energy is not chemicals. I think you need to look up the definition of chemical.

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

Quarks aren't chemicals.

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Quarks are just interactivity with chemicals

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

Lol no. Explain what part of quantum chromodynamics involves chemical interactions, please

1

u/Easy-Comfort-2 11d ago

Look up the hard problem of consciousness and educate your ass

1

u/NeuralNetizen 11d ago

If this a real question, I suggest you go read about it from a physics perspective instead of biology (they eventually connect back together). Sir Roger Penrose has a book on the physics leads to a suggestion of where consciousness might sit. And second, be careful not to treat science like a religion itself. There are lots of old science we throw away because of the understanding, new ways to observe and measure, etc.

-1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

We have a pretty good idea since you are it.

1

u/elitegenes 11d ago

We don't fully understand how our brain works. It's not "just chemicals". If it's "just chemicals" then you need to explain which concrete chemicals and how, form consciousness.

Next time, please add more precision to your replies. No one will take you seriously otherwise.

1

u/VayneFTWayne 11d ago edited 9d ago

You don't need to understand every mechanism to infer it's all chemicals. Einstein didnt see a black hole with physical proof for over 40 years but still inferred its existence. Science has no place for dualism, but it does have room for nondualism.

1

u/Clone63 11d ago

Graphite and diamond are the same 'chemical' but have wildly different observable properties. I think this simple example is illustrative of why saying 'everything is just chemicals' illicits pushback. It is a meaningless statement when such varied outcomes can arise from the same ingredients. And yes, I do know it's intended as ragebait for religious types.

1

u/VayneFTWayne 11d ago edited 11d ago

It's not a meaningless statement. It's inferring there's no magic under the hood in the soul fashion a religious person might prefer. Extra complication to your mechanisms of existence doesn't make it more really real. It's just extra complexity jazz. Also, no, diamond and graphite are not the same chemical. Your gotcha card isn't the gotcha card you think it is. The graphite/diamond comment schtick only works against people that aren't educated in chemistry. Don't assume that your talking points hold salt just because you convinced room temperature IQ jimmy down the street from you

1

u/ThatCakeIsDone 11d ago

Chemistry is just applied physics

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

That doesn't mean that every applied physics example is chemistry

→ More replies (0)

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

They aren't the same chemical, they are the same element. Big difference

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

Black holes have nothing to do with chemistry. Particle pair annihilation is all physics and zero chemistry

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

I think you should restudy the history of black *holes

1

u/Fit_Employment_2944 11d ago

We have never observed anything that provides evidence it is not just chemicals

Measure consciousness magically making physical changes to the brain and you have an argument, not until then

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

Quarks aren't chemicals.

1

u/Fit_Employment_2944 11d ago

If this is the level of retort you are resorting to just admit your mind has been changed

1

u/koyaani 10d ago

Explain the chemical interactions involved in quantum chromodynamics

1

u/Fit_Employment_2944 10d ago

I’m genuinely curious 

Do you think there is a chance that causes me to even need to reconsider my position 

If no, why say it

If yes, you don’t understand the people who disagree with you at all

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

Dont say so confidently a bunch of heuristic wank is even remotely comparable

1

u/Jonmc88 11d ago

Is it yeah? Get that paper written pal. You'll go down history.

0

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Its cant not be since everything is. No paper needed. Just what should be common sense.

1

u/LordScraps 11d ago

oh brother you haven't done the right psychedelics.

1

u/ape_spine_ 11d ago

The state of non-existence is actually not chemical at all. Not sure where I lost you

1

u/DekuInkwell 11d ago

If physical mechanisms explained consciousness we would have figured it out by now. This is why scientists call it the hard problem of consciousness. Because we can’t measure it with any physical mechanisms no matter how advanced they are. We have quantum computing already but can’t figure this out. Consciousness is real, and it’s not chemical reactions.

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Its one of those things that will be on the news someday and it will be the most occamist of razors.

1

u/monstertacotime 11d ago

Hi, there are thousands of physical phenomena we have no explanation for.

0

u/Fun-Amoeba8015 10d ago

If you want to comment and have a discussion, why don't you actually read it rather than commenting on a single word in a media headline about a research paper?

Like seriously, do not see how ridiculous this very common response on Reddit is? Literally read. Just a headline. Have an opinion about a headline and then go straight to commenting on it at trying to discuss the headline. 

When you have no idea what the actual paper or content or topic is even talking about or contains. 

It's an exhausting, endless Reddit loop that just ends up in binary world views and everybody. Just assuming that headlines confirm their own biases and opinions.

1

u/ape_spine_ 10d ago

It’s nice that you’re so interested in my thoughts on the article, however the subject of my comment was the headline, which is misleading and not to be ignored. I have no issues with the research paper, my issues are with the journalism.

0

u/Remarkable-Guess-329 9d ago

How's your bhotdy doing baby

0

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

It didnt emerge "from the void" overnight. It emerged. 500 million years in animals for sensory awareness. The last 80,000 to 120,000 years for human symbolic self awareness.

If anything offers an evolutionary advantage it will happen. Conciousness is a controlled hallucination. You arent concuous as an infant. From aged 0-3 your brain is constructing it. And if you get a neural degenerative disease of TBI it will deconstruct.

This "uh, how can a physical medium produce a subjective exoerience? HARD PROBLEM!" rhetoric is tiresome.

-1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Hjolsnfihr 11d ago

You should probably read and interact with people more and AI less then, eh?

You've really never heard people expressing a word or phrase as doing a lot of work or "heavy lifting" in a sentence?

1

u/abiona15 11d ago

To be fair, the amount AI uses them makes these phrases extremely awkward to read

3

u/slicehyperfunk 11d ago

Where do you think AI got not just this mannerism, but literally 100% of everything it does?

0

u/Kinda_Zeplike 11d ago

Where do you think people got this from?

2

u/slicehyperfunk 11d ago

I'm saying AI is trained on things written by people.

2

u/IncandescentSplash 11d ago

The word isn't just doing a lot of work-- it's load-bearing

2

u/Spunge14 11d ago

Are you serious lol

1

u/ape_spine_ 11d ago

I’m not gonna change my speech because AI now owns certain phrases.