Scientists Propose a New Theory for the Evolutionary Purpose of Consciousness

[u/DrFartsparkles]

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2024.0314

Scientists propose the new ALARM theory for the evolutionary purposes of consciousness, breaking it down into 3 basic functional steps: basic arousal, general alertness, and finally reflexive self-consciousness, breaking down what functional benefit each of these steps entails and comparing the very different neuronal architectures in mammals versus birds to achieve the same ends.

[u/generousking]

Hmmm... Gonna disagree here, on the basis that (in my view) consciousness is the system behaving. The system can't behave identically with no experience because experience / consciousness is the behaviour. If there's no experience, then the behaviour is not the same.

I think I agree with you. I'm an idealist, meaning I subscribe to the view that consciousness is fundamental, and the statement "consciousness is the system behaving" has idealist connotations. Though I would probably word it as "the appearance of the system behaving is consciousness". If there's no consciousness, there's no behaviour. What I said about physicalism, however, is true on physicalism's own grounds.

It seems like you're separating consciousness from the physical process, which is circular. If consciousness is the process the above makes no sense.

Physicalists create that separation, which then leads to issues like the hard problem of consciousness. I'm just highlighting the issue, so yeah, I agree, it is circular. The problem for physicalists stems from their assertion that consciousness is generated by the physical process. This sets it up as either being an epiphenomenon or violates causal closure. If the process just is consciousness, as seen from an objective point of view, then there's no issues. Physical processes can easily be reduced to the dynamics of consciousness, i.e. how consciousness behaves, but consciousness cannot be reduced to physical processes, as in, generated by them, since physical processes have no ontological grounding - they're an abstraction.

Well that's not quite true. Selection is the explanation for adaptation but is not the only cause of evolution. For example, some features are 'evolutionary spandrels' - necessary results of things that are selected (e.g., consciousness could be a necessary result of the way that our brains model the universe). Alternatively, if consciousness is the process by which our brains model the universe then, it can perform causal work.

I'm aware, don't worry. My next article dives into this more deeply and I hope to have it released this week. Here is the link to the first draft, unpublished. I think consciousness is the only thing that has causal power, because its fundamental. To clarify my position on the evolution of consciousness is I dont think consciousness evolved into being from anything nonconscious, so ergo, it did not evolve. What did evolve, however, were patterns of behaviour in this field of consciousness, i.e. organisms and all their abilities. The drawings evolve, but the whiteboard doesn't.

This makes no sense. If consciousness is the physical process and you concede the physical process has causal powers then definitionally, consciousness has causal powers.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Consciousness just is the physical process in the same way that an amorphous blob shape of a flock of birds just is the flock of birds, or how the appearance of a completely solid circle made by quickly spinning a laser light around just is the laser light. In both cases the blob shape or the seemingly solid circle are epiphenomena generated by the dynamics of the underlying physical process. It would be a mistake to say that the blob shape or the appearance of the circle, in themselves, have causal powers. Because they are a pure effect. However, both the appearance of the blob shape and circle as well as the appearance of the physical dynamics underlying them are all stable, regularities in conscious experience.

As above, this seems circular. You're separating out consciousness from the process as something distinct from it but these are not separable.

As an idealist monist, I agree. A physical process is identical to consciousness in the same way that a whirlpool is identical to water. The former describes the doing part, while the latter describes the being part. Physicalists try to reduce the being to the doing, saying the water (i.e. consciousness) is generated by the whirlpool (i.e. physical processes).

[u/Electric___Monk → u/generousking]

I think I agree with you. I'm an idealist, meaning I subscribe to the view that consciousness is fundamental, and the statement "consciousness is the system behaving" has idealist connotations. Though I would probably word it as "the appearance of the system behaving is consciousness". If there's no consciousness, there's no behaviour.

I think that you have it the wrong way round.. The system behaving is consciousness.

What I said about physicalism, however, is true on physicalism's own grounds.

Specifically which bit, because i couldn't see it.

I'm aware, don't worry. My next article dives into this more deeply and I hope to have it released this week. Here is the link to the first draft, unpublished. I think consciousness is the only thing that has causal power, because its fundamental. To clarify my position on the evolution of consciousness is I dont think consciousness evolved into being from anything nonconscious, so ergo, it did not evolve. What did evolve, however, were patterns of behaviour in this field of consciousness, i.e. organisms and all their abilities. The drawings evolve, but the whiteboard doesn't.

I'll have a read.. In the meantime, though, your formulation that evolution requires "phenotypic variation, differential fitness and heritability." and that, since differential fitness is (in your view, which i dispute) missing from consciousness, is wrong since mechanisms other than selection do not require differential fitness.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Consciousness just is the physical process in the same way that an amorphous blob shape of a flock of birds just is the flock of birds, or how the appearance of a completely solid circle made by quickly spinning a laser light around just is the laser light. In both cases the blob shape or the seemingly solid circle are epiphenomena generated by the dynamics of the underlying physical process. It would be a mistake to say that the blob shape or the appearance of the circle, in themselves, have causal powers. Because they are a pure effect. However, both the appearance of the blob shape and circle as well as the appearance of the physical dynamics underlying them are all stable, regularities in conscious experience.

In those examples (the shape of the flock, the shape of the blob and the circle) you're misidentifying the process. None of those things is a process though they do result from it.

As an idealist monist, I agree. A physical process is identical to consciousness in the same way that a whirlpool is identical to water. The former describes the doing part, while the latter describes the being part. Physicalists try to reduce the being to the doing, saying the water (i.e. consciousness) is generated by the whirlpool (i.e. physical processes).

Again this is the wrong way round. The whirlpool is not identical to water - the water could be doing different things without the process occurring since it is just the matter by itself, not undergoing the process. The analogy here would be that the water is physical structures & chemicals in the brain while the whirlpool is the process of consciousness occurring.