Evolutionary reason for consciousness?

[roydop]

"Why" is the only question that matters. If the "why" is not understood questions/questing will continue.

Why do humans watch movies, sporting events, video games, read books?

This realm is God's entertainment. You are God and "your name here" is the part of you that has temporarily forgotten self while vicariously experiencing through that character.

Evolution of consciousness is the process of falling into this delusion and then coming back out.

[henry quirk]

Consciousness (being aware of surroundings) makes organisms more successful at the serious business of living (being and staying alive).

Self-consciousness (self-awareness): that there is a horse of an entirely different color (that is, self/awareness of self may not fall strictly within what might be considered evolutionarily or biologically advantageous).

[Dimebag]

Right now, there is not even a picture of the structure of consciousness, I.e. what systems of the brain are doing what at any given time when we are doing particular tasks requiring consciousness in varying degrees.

You have already set yourself up for the trap of circular reasoning, all you have to do is walk into it.

How do you go about asserting whether any particular task does or does not require consciousness if you don't know what consciousness is?

Starting with an agnostic-empiricist position:
What do you interpret as confirmatory evidence that a particular tasks requires consciousness?
What do you interpret as disconfirmatory evidence that a particular task doesn't require consciousness?

You can't solve the hard problem of consciousness without solving the relatively-easier problem of criterion.

We all know what consciousness is by virtue of having it and by being aware that we have experiences. You simply observe your own processes to learn about what tasks require consciousness. Where you aren’t certain, consult the evidence, psychology or neuroscience.

But to actually know how those experiences are produced by the brain is a separate question. One speaks to identity, the other to causal relations. Nice try though.

[Skepdick]

We all know what consciousness is by virtue of having it.

At best this is an axiomatic assumption on your part. At worst - you are making an epistemological error.

Consider the structure of this question: How do I know that I have X if I don't know what X is?

Now ask these questions:
1. How do I know that I have locaptods if I don't know what locaptods is?
2. How do I know that I have consciousness if I don't know what consciousness is?

Why is only the first question ridiculous?

Where you aren’t certain, consult the evidence, psychology or neuroscience.

This is not an answer - it's an appeal to authority.

If I am uncertain about the evidence I can acquire about myself by myself, I will surely be even less certain about the evidence acquired by other people about other people when you take all of the knowledge-transmission errors into account.

You simply observe your own processes to learn about what tasks require consciousness.

How do I know that introspection requires consciousness if I don't know what consciousness is?
How do I know that observation requires consciousness if I don't know what consciousness is?
How do I know that learning requires consciousness if I don't know what consciousness is?
How do I know that feeling requires consciousness if I don't know what consciousness is?

You don't know what consciousness is, or whether you even have it. Nobody does - it's just a label we ascribe to ourselves.
This silly language trick has had philosophers stuck in a mode of circular reasoning for thousands of years.

It's not the "hard problem of consciousness" - it's the hamster wheel of sophistry.

But to actually know how those experiences are produced by the brain is a separate question.

It is a separate question, but I never asked it.

What I am asking you is: how you know that you have consciousness if you don't know what consciousness is?

[Zelebg]

I have higher hopes though, that to truly solve the easy problem as Chalmers coined it, which would be to understand the total functionality of consciousness, we would gain insight into why there is anything it’s like to be conscious.

Ok, but in the meantime I would like you to try and think of one thing that we get with qualia which would provide basis for some functionality that can not be computed without it.

Ideas, original concepts, for example. Can a computer do that, and to what degree? Or dreams, do they maybe provide some functionality that can not be computed without them? Something along those lines. Just try, if you will, see what will come out of your brain.

[Zelebg]

How do you go about asserting whether any particular task does or does not require consciousness if you don't know what consciousness is?

According to some theory. The theory I presented, for example, says the task of "planning in advance" requires consciousness. Furthermore, "planning in advance" requires creativity, which means imagination and creation of new ideas, and it also implies memory, learning, concept of self and others, concept of time.. I see later on you go crazy with questions, but towards what point? Do you have a point, what is it?

[Skepdick]

How do you go about asserting whether any particular task does or does not require consciousness if you don't know what consciousness is?

According to some theory. The theory I presented, for example, says the task of "planning in advance" requires consciousness.

OK, so according to your theory "planning in advance" requires consciousness. According to my theory it doesn't.

How do we determine whose theory is right/wrong?

Furthermore, "planning in advance" requires creativity, which means imagination and creation of new ideas,

It doesn't. Computers regularly beat humans at games which require planning/strategy/tactics - chess, Go, Star Craft.

Your computer's operating system has a bunch of planning/optimisation algorithms running at this very moment.

Here is classical music composed by an algorithm: https://youtu.be/CWDDqxNx5ug

and it also implies memory, learning, concept of self and others, concept of time..

Computers have memory.
Object-oriented programming languages have a notion of self (it's called introspection/reflection - it's modeled after humans)
Machine learning has been making great leaps/advancements over the last 2 decades.
Computers have a notion of "locality" and "remoteness" e.g self and other.
Computers have a concept of time. Multiple actually.

I see later on you go crazy with questions, but towards what point? Do you have a point, what is it?

Towards the point called "The Problem of Criterion". It's Epistemology 101 stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_criterion

Because you don't understand what epistemology is, and because you don't understand how epistemology works is why you can't understand that the question "Am I conscious?" is meaningless.

Every single one of the criteria for consciousness you have stated has already been satisfied by modern technology.
Since you don't consider modern technology to be "conscious" by any stretch of the imagination, I can only conclude that all the theoretical criteria for "consciousness" you have listed so far are at best necessary, but not sufficient for consciousness.

So my point is made in two simple questions:

1. Epistemically speaking, what do you consider to be a sufficient criterion for consciousness?
2. How do you know the answer to 1?

I can only show you the door, Neo. You are the one who has to walk through it.

[Zelebg]

How do we determine whose theory is right/wrong?

Like with any other scientific theory. And that answers all your questions.

[Skepdick]

How do we determine whose theory is right/wrong?

Like with any other scientific theory. And that answers all your questions.

You can't test it like 'any other' scientific theory, because there is nothing scientific about it. It's just some words you strung together.
That half-assed claim that "consciousness is required for X" doesn't even lend itself for computing any testable consequences, never mind the falsifiability criterion, but perhaps I am mistaken?

Go ahead a produce the experiment design.

What are your starting assumptions?
What is your null and alternative hypotheses?
What tests would you perform?
What measurements would you take?
What observations would you consider as supporting for your null hypotheses?
What observations would you consider as supporting your alternative hypotheses?


Goodluck. Master Philosopher. Do some science.

[Zelebg]

Goodluck. Master Philosopher. Do some science.

You keep making the same stupid point that there is no point talking about this. So what then, you are wasting your time trying to save my time, telling me I should better go fishing instead. Thanks, baby philisopher! I'll consider it, so now there is no need for you to talk and waste everyone's time here anymore. God help you!

[Skepdick]

You keep making the same stupid point that there is no point talking about this.

The point is the why not the what.

I am making this point because a planet full of epistemologists is way better than a planet full of philosophers.

If by pondering about consciousness you end up learning about applied epistemology it's still a nett win, but you aren't even making an effort beyond sophistry.

So what then, you are wasting your time trying to save my time, telling me I should better go fishing instead. Thanks, baby philisopher! I'll consider it, so now there is no need for you to talk and waste everyone's time here anymore. God help you!

If you choose ignorance and intellectual masturbation - say so. And I shall offer you not a second more of my time without an invoice.

[Zelebg]

If you choose ignorance and intellectual masturbation - say so.

So it appears to you, and yes I choose it. There, I said it. Bye, bye, baby.

[Skepdick]

So it appears to you, and yes I choose it. There, I said it. Bye, bye, baby.

Bye bye, sophist. Enjoy the hamster wheel.

[-1-]

Eventually every person, reasonable or not, smart or stupid, fat or lean, old or young, rich or poor, realizes that Skepdick is precisely that.

He is impossible. Not to argue with; he is just plain impossible. A real waste of humanity. His parents now think he'd be lucky to amount to nothing.

But to realize this, he needs to pull you in. Which everyone falls for. I did. His problem is that it's easier to fall out of thinking that he is normal, or even human, however, and the feeling is much more permanent, than to think he is normal. That sentiment never returns.

[Zelebg]

His parents now think he'd be lucky to amount to nothing.

Hahahaaaa! For this laugh, it was all worth it.