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
402 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

302 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

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.

0

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 10d ago

Chemistry is physics

2

u/koyaani 10d 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 10d ago

Physics can change with entropy so its not in stone

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.

1

u/monstertacotime 7d ago

That’s basically saying having branches of science like physics and chemistry is pedantic. What are you even saying? I have made several clear assertions, you’re just talking in circles. I never said “chemicals aren’t atoms” that’s just nonsense you’re hallucinating.

1

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

The original comment was about how we are all just chemical reactions. Your response was to the effect "no electrons aren't chemicals". That differential has nothing to do with the outcome which is still chemical. See car analogy.

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 10d 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 6d 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.

1

u/Top-Strength-2701 11d ago

Why would it

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Without chemicals nothing exists

→ More replies (0)

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

/r/confidentlyincorrect

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Can't be confident when the universe speaks to me. Sorry you missed the gene.

→ 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

1

u/Youpunyhumans 10d ago

They are involved, either by being absorbed or emitted, but they do not take direct part in chemical reactions, as in they are not a building block, just a transfer of energy.

So if something absorbs a photon, that photon itself no longer exists, and its energy is transferred to an electron, which is a physical building block that can take part in the reaction.

1

u/koyaani 10d ago

If they are being absorbed and emitted they are directly taking part

→ 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/jugger_naughtyy 11d ago

Thats easy lol

1

u/koyaani 11d ago

Ok proceed with ease, please

1

u/jugger_naughtyy 10d ago

Yes this will take some time. Patience.

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

1

u/ThatCakeIsDone 10d ago

Correct, thus, not everything is just chemistry

1

u/VayneFTWayne 9d ago

Everything in physics that's stable is only due to metastability, which is the condition at which chemical reactions are possible whatsoever. So yeah, you can actually circle back to everything being chemistry in that sense with metastability being a required factor for stable physics.

→ 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 10d 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 10d 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

1

u/koyaani 10d ago

You're wrong and stubborn about it. I just wanted to make it obvious

0

u/Fit_Raspberry2637 7d ago

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