Thread replies: 19
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: Large_Baboon_Tribe_600.jpg (62KB, 600x449px) Image search:
[Google]
62KB, 600x449px
What do you think was the very primordial reason for consciousness to appear, /sci/?
I like the sound of the "speech evolved first" theory, or:
>Consciousness appeared when primates evolved primitive speech from their random noises, which led to many of them uncontrollably "expressing" their taboo desires like fucking the alpha's females, which then led to most of them either getting slaughtered or severely punished.
In such a case, a regulatory mechanism that simulates your peer's behavior and allows you to "put yourself in his shoes" and plan the effect of your actions in advance is hugely beneficial, as the anxiety one such mechanism would generate would actually eliminate the closest existential threat to your genes - getting excommunicated by the alpha and demoted into a non-reproducing omega because you uncontrollably spouted out shit you shouldn't. Therefor, the thing that is able to simulate social behavior and consequences of your own social behavior only got promoted more and more as our societies became exponentially complex, which trend can be observed up until today, where good social skills and status is the ultimate reproductive value above anything else.
What do you guys think? Is it bullshit, and if so, why and what would be a more logical explanation?
>>
shouldn't it not be something larger of a network than just speech? otherwise are newborns/deaf people not conscious?
>>
>>8764414
mute people*
>>
>>8764411
first you have to define what consciousness is
>>
>>
>>8764430
you can just keep reducing with this line of thinking though
what about a deaf mute?
>>
>>8764442
Well I can't know if such a person has an inner monologue, and I don't think that anyone can access such an information until the brains are fully mapped. They're pretty much a black box with no output, so I think that we should rather focus on what's easily provable
>>
>>8764414
Whole races, cities or tribes haven't been mute and deaf. Neither is deafness/muteness dominant traits that tend to overtake full sensation. It doesn't matter, they surf on evolution all the same.
Or can three legged dogs not walk?
>>
>>
>>8764466
Disability on a small scale doesn't cause evolution to derail, as far as we know. I meant to say it doesn't matter what one person or other has to work with unless they are severely mentally disabled, they are still human, with all the benefits and disadvantages that entails, there among consciousness.
>>
>>8764466
>if deaf mutes don't fall into your idea of conscious you should be start making it much more clear what your idea of conscious is
I said that we lack enough information to describe what deaf mutes might be thinking so it's not worth it digging into it when we're surrounded by all those humans who aren't neither deaf nor mute
>>
>>
>>8764477
>we don't know what cats are thinking but i assume most people would place cats into the 'conscious' category
Well, to be honest, you can also claim that primates are conscious since they have sign language as opposed to any other animal. Oh, wait for it, they also have anxieties, a social structure, and use tools.
>>
>>8764477
>shouldn't it not be something larger of a network than just speech
I would say you did say something out of line with what I posted. I disagree there needs to be anything other than speech. The capacity to do it is not required to reap the benefits of language.
>>
With respect, I think many of you are assuming consciousness is exclusive to primates/mammals.
>>
>>8764497
by larger network than just speech i meant more along the lines of a longer checklist of options than just speech (and speech not being a necessity)
>>
What if what constitutes a conscious experience - even on the most primitive level - is the very constituents of matter itself.
I like to think of the doubleslit experiment. The photon/what ever particle we can send through, seems to make a choice based on its own environmental stimulus such that when it is interacted with by parts of its environment which it can identify with, it becomes conscious and makes a choice.
When it is left dormant it becomes much like you when you dream in the sense that you have a set of possible experiences when you are not conscious, and these experiences reflect your previous environmental stimulus, for the particles example - left or right slit? And what we see on the screen is the interference pattern, a kind of 'dream' which reflects the possible experiences that particle assumes it could have based on its dormant (but semi conscious- relative to fully conscious) self.
Im also really baked
>>
File: 51Ao7NwZomL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (40KB, 326x499px) Image search:
[Google]
40KB, 326x499px
>>8764558
it cant just be the constituents of matter (i.e. on some level the arrangement also plays a role) since right after you die you're virtually identical in a material sense to when you were alive, and you're (probably not) conscious when you're dead
'waking up' has a quick rundown on these ideas
>>
>>8764592
Couldnt the arrangement of particles just play a role in the overall complexity of the conscious experience? I see no way the complexity determines, consciousness as being on or Off or 1,0 but i see it as clear or unclear, or complex or simple minded with respect to the systems understanding of its environment.
Thread posts: 19
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3