4 ms·

A 25-Year-Old Bet about Consciousness Has Finally Been Settled

18 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

sph 3y ago
Very interesting, and I had never heard of IIT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory) before. What's weird to a layman, is that the theories described both in the article and by IIT seem to theorize that consciousness is pervasive in the universe, even in inanimate objects, while it might seem obvious to any of us humans that it's a prerogative of highly intelligent animals only, and in no way can a CD-ROM be described as conscious, however you look at it. My pet theory I keep going back to is that consciousness and self-awareness is a side-effect of higher-order reasoning and our pre-frontal neural cortex. Take any form of life with a nervous system, say an amoeba, give it a complex, layered associative memory system, the ability to predict future events, to entertain abstract thought, and you might get a self-aware amoeba. The confluence of all these systems, which we know are incredibly developed in humans and primates and we know depend on the complexity of a brain, gives birth to a side-effect of awareness and sense of self. I stress the side effect part. Despite our egoistic belief and drive to prove that the universe has been created for us, or consciousness is necessary for our survival, maybe the whole idea of us is just the result of the interplay between other systems. Seen under this light, one might see consciousness as a bug, a necessary evil, if you will, that you have to deal with when you slap together those high-order thought processes. Of course I am not a scientist in any way, but it seems strange to imagine consciousness being a quantum atomic effect when it's only been proven to exist in a very limited set of lifeforms, not in all matter.
- roarcher 3y ago
  > it's only been proven to exist in a very limited set of lifeforms, not in all matter. Consciousness has not been proven to exist or not exist in anything. It has been assumed to exist in certain life forms because they behave in ways that we associate with our own conscious behavior. It is not possible (yet, anyway) for you to even prove that other humans are conscious. The only consciousness that you can "prove" exists is your own, and you can only prove it to yourself. It may seem obvious that a human or a dog is conscious and that a rock or a tree is not, but something seeming obvious is not proof.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jondwillis 3y ago
  The notion that consciousness is pervasive in all things is called panpsychism. edit) ah yeah, the linked wikipedia links to panpsychism.
- sph 3y ago
  EDIT: funny that as an example of simple lifeform with a nervous system, I chose the amoeba, which definitely doesn't have one, and is unicellular. So imagine a self-aware fruit fly instead.

18 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

sph 3y ago

Very interesting, and I had never heard of IIT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory) before. What's weird to a layman, is that the theories described both in the article and by IIT seem to theorize that consciousness is pervasive in the universe, even in inanimate objects, while it might seem obvious to any of us humans that it's a prerogative of highly intelligent animals only, and in no way can a CD-ROM be described as conscious, however you look at it. My pet theory I keep going back to is that consciousness and self-awareness is a side-effect of higher-order reasoning and our pre-frontal neural cortex. Take any form of life with a nervous system, say an amoeba, give it a complex, layered associative memory system, the ability to predict future events, to entertain abstract thought, and you might get a self-aware amoeba. The confluence of all these systems, which we know are incredibly developed in humans and primates and we know depend on the complexity of a brain, gives birth to a side-effect of awareness and sense of self. I stress the side effect part. Despite our egoistic belief and drive to prove that the universe has been created for us, or consciousness is necessary for our survival, maybe the whole idea of us is just the result of the interplay between other systems. Seen under this light, one might see consciousness as a bug, a necessary evil, if you will, that you have to deal with when you slap together those high-order thought processes. Of course I am not a scientist in any way, but it seems strange to imagine consciousness being a quantum atomic effect when it's only been proven to exist in a very limited set of lifeforms, not in all matter.

roarcher 3y ago
> it's only been proven to exist in a very limited set of lifeforms, not in all matter. Consciousness has not been proven to exist or not exist in anything. It has been assumed to exist in certain life forms because they behave in ways that we associate with our own conscious behavior. It is not possible (yet, anyway) for you to even prove that other humans are conscious. The only consciousness that you can "prove" exists is your own, and you can only prove it to yourself. It may seem obvious that a human or a dog is conscious and that a rock or a tree is not, but something seeming obvious is not proof.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jondwillis 3y ago
The notion that consciousness is pervasive in all things is called panpsychism. edit) ah yeah, the linked wikipedia links to panpsychism.
sph 3y ago
EDIT: funny that as an example of simple lifeform with a nervous system, I chose the amoeba, which definitely doesn't have one, and is unicellular. So imagine a self-aware fruit fly instead.