7 Answers

  1. First you need to understand which cells on earth are the most on account of whether they are not human, then all these problems with reason and consciousness are just a way to win evolution quantitatively.

    Even in a single human individual, the neuron consumes the most energy per cell – this is also a victory. And the fact that consciousness appeared at the same time – well, it turned out that now it's too late to rush around.

  2. To answer this question specifically in Ya-Q, it would be good to answer such psi-questions:

    • And what is “human consciousness” and how does it fundamentally differ from the consciousness of a primate, for example?
    • Are we interested in this particular difference?
    • And for what purpose? For a general conversation like “how did the Big Bang come about” or “Is an electron a particle or a wave?” Or to confirm the idea of the origin of the soul according to religion?
    • Or even a topic for HYPE?

    If you want to talk in the style of “theoretical psychology”, then no tools have yet been created to measure and confirm or refute all theories, like the collider or telescope. And even more so to predict some process from any hypothesis.

    Even the following question is not clear: How does the” consciousness ” of one person (a theoretical psychologist) differ from the consciousness of another (a practical psychologist)? )) Or from the consciousness of a schizophrenic?

    And the consciousness of an adult is different from that of a child?

    And the consciousness of the fetus is different from the consciousness of a born person? And at what point does it appear in the embryo?

    This topic is more for questions than answers.

    A well-formulated question can be satisfying in itself.

  3. If we consider consciousness, reason, and intelligence as synonymous concepts, then the emergence of such a historical phenomenon was quite natural. Even before Darwin created his famous theory, the American scientist J. R. R. Tolkien wrote a book on the subject.Dana identified the sequence of development of living organisms, which he called cephalization. In the modern interpretation, this direction of evolution is called intellectualization. Paradoxically, this trend is manifested not only in representatives of the biosphere, but also in artificial systems of the technosphere. A fundamentally new class of machines with intelligent functions (computers) is emerging. If this process is further preserved and strengthened, the emergence of artificial intelligence will inevitably occur.

  4. First, you need to clearly understand ” what is consciousness?” (what exactly is it about). Unfortunately, there is no “generally accepted definition” of what “consciousness” is.

    Using this word, we can mean not only “different”, but also sometimes completely opposite (incompatible).

    • If we are talking about the ability to determine (and not a programmed” external ” response) the best response to “stimuli” under the created conditions, then it is inherent in all living things (both amoebas and plants that do not have a single “nerve cell”). Even dandelions open their flowers in the Sun and turn them towards it (but not all of them are the same).
    • If we talk about banal processes such as “filtering” or “image comparison”, now often referred to as” artificial intelligence”, then they can also be implemented” purely mechanically “(even sedimentary layers are often filtered and systematically arranged by natural physical processes without any use of” intelligence”, whatever they are called).
    • If we talk about the ability to understand the processes of the surrounding reality and determine “your place” in them-to understand their usefulness/harmfulness and find ways to use them in practice in your interests (whatever these interests may be). Then in many animals (including ants, squids, not to mention primates), this ability is clearly present, but in “artificial intelligence” it is completely absent (it does not understand what it is “doing”and why).
    • If we are talking about the creative development of understanding and comprehending “phenomena “(about successfully operating with life meanings) into new practical processes and ” devices “(which are not directly present in” living nature”), including the ability to study” laws of nature “and use them in a non-trivial way in artificially created objects or conditions, then on Earth no one but a person shows such” spiritual development ” now.
    • There is also what is often called “self-consciousness” (our “I”), that is, who and how we imagine ourselves (what R. Descartes was looking for in” doubts”).

    That is, there are completely different “things”, most likely of different”origins”.

    The list of options for understanding “consciousness” is endless (I have given only a small part of the “typical”ones).

    Of course, all of the above and much more can be abstracted from living reality, “classified” according to certain a priori “criteria” taken from the ceiling, combining the results obtained in terms such as “qualia” or “cognitive”, but I strongly doubt that this will make it clearer or allow us to successfully apply “knowledge in practice” (life, and not to show “success” in front of the “scientific community” or “customers” of research).

    Accordingly, the answer to your question that is acceptable to you depends on what exactly you mean by “consciousness”.

    Some of what I have described clearly happened purely physically (without any “biology”), some evolutionarily-biologically (by adaptation reflected in “genomes”), others are due to” training ” (in parents or even in individuals of other species), and the reasons for the origin of other things are still unknown to modern science (there are a lot of assumptions, but there is no solid evidence).

    Kira gave you a detailed but subjective picture of scientific hypotheses and achievements (even with an indication of their alleged “discoverers”). But she mixed different “consciousnesses” and their ” origins “into one continuous” picture of evolution ” (such as she built for herself). I read it carefully, but I still didn't understand what exactly even she means by “consciousness” (it is true that at the very beginning she said that such a word does not exist in most languages at all, but despite this, she began to describe “the origin of the non-existent”).

    If you describe “everything in a heap” it will only confuse the question, and if you talk specifically, but it is not clear about what, then most likely I will “talk about Thomas”, and you will think that this is said “about Yerema” (and we will definitely not understand each other).

    Please decide what exactly and specifically you are asking (even if in “simple words”, it is important that this can be clearly understood).

  5. For the emergence of “noogenesis”, “mind”, “reason”, “intelligence”, and patterns, see” noogenesis”, including the infographic – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noogenesis

    The model of “synthesis of sensory information with memory and motivation” by A. Ivanitsky (Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences) tried to reveal the morphophysiological foundations. – The synthesis of information about the physical and signaling properties of the stimulus on the neurons of the visual cortex leads to the appearance of a sensation, which is then recognized and categorized with the participation of the frontal cortex. Sensations arise as a result of the cyclic movement of nerve impulses and the synthesis of sensory information in the projection cortex with information extracted from memory. Numbers in the frame – milliseconds after the stimulus is presented.- Ivanitsky A.M., �Ivanitsky G.A., Sysoeva O.V. �Brain science: On the way to solving the problem of consciousness // Int. J. of Psychophys. 73 (2009) 101–108 https://vk.com/doc260654063_374524419?hash=3b8b3e31c1f3e63b7c&dl=7695e53bf767404951

    Since the phenomenon of “consciousness” itself is not clear, the structural and functional binding to the phenomenon is difficult.
    According to Dr. Michio Kakuō (Professor of physics at New York University): “There are 20 thousand articles on the question of what consciousness is, but no consensus has been found” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GS2rxROcPo

  6. If you look at the career of Francis Crick, perhaps the most gifted and influential biologist of the second half of the twentieth century, you can see that understanding consciousness is the most difficult task facing science.

    After World War II, when Crick began studying biology ,it was considered that science faced two great unsolvable questions: what distinguishes the living from the inanimate and what is the biological nature of consciousness? At first, Crick turned to the simpler question of the difference between living matter and inanimate matter and began to study the nature of the gene. In 1953, after just two years of working together, he andJim Watson helped science solve this mystery. As Watson later wrote in his book “Double Helix“, “during lunch, Francis flew into the Eagle Pub to” tell everyone who was sitting close enough to hear him that we had”discovered the secret of life”. Over the next two decades, Crick helped science “decipher the genetic code and understand how RNA is synthesized on DNA” and protein on RNA.

    In 1976, when he was sixty, Crick turned to the remaining ” scientific mystery — – the biological nature of consciousness. He worked on it until the end of his life in collaboration withChristoph Koch is a young computational neuroscientist. Crick has applied all his optimism and extraordinary intelligence to this research. “It is thanks to him that the scientific community, which previously ignored this question, has now focused on the problem of consciousness. But in thirty years of continuous work, Crick has made only a small amount of progress in studying the nature of consciousness. Moreover, some scientists and philosophers who “study the psyche” still find consciousness incomprehensible “and are inclined to believe that it can never be explained” in biological terms. They doubt the fundamental possibility of “knowing how a biological system, a biological machine, can” feel something. They are even more dubious about how she can reflect on herself.

    Thanks to the work of a small group of neuroscientists and theoretical physicists over the past few years, we can finally find a way to ” analyze the mysterious and metaphysical realm of consciousness on a scientific “basis. The latest breakthrough in this new area was announced byMax Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The scientist claims that consciousness is actually a state of matter.

    “Just as there are many types of fluids, there are many types of consciousness.”,

    – he says. With this new model, Tegmark argues that consciousness can be ” described in terms of quantum mechanics and information theory, which will allow “us to scientifically address such mysterious topics as self-awareness and” why we perceive the world in classical three-dimensional terms, rather than as “an infinite series of objective realities proposed before” the emergence of a multi-world interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    Consciousness has always been a difficult subject for scientific discussion. After all, science deals with effects that can be observed and described mathematically, and consciousness has so far successfully evaded this approach.

    He made recent attempts to formalize consciousnessGiulio Tononi, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who proposed Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and now Max Tegmark of MIT, who has tried to generalize Tononi's work from the point of view of quantum mechanics. In his scientific work “Consciousness as a state of matter” – Tegmark suggested that consciousness can be considered as a “state of matter called “perceptronium”, which can be “differentiated from other types of matter (solid, liquid, gaseous)” using five mathematically based principles.

    In short, the theory takes as its basis IIT Tononi-consciousness is the result of a system that can accumulate and effectively use information – and leads it to the perceptronium, defined as ” a common substance that is subjectively self-perceived.” This substance can not only accumulate and use data, but is also indivisible and unified. Most of the work describes the perceptronium in terms of quantum mechanics and examines why we perceive the world in terms of classical independent systems, rather than in terms of one large interconnected quantum hodgepodge. To this question, in particular, Tegmark has no answer.

    Tegmark's work doesn't get to the point where we can answer the question of what causes or creates consciousness, but it does show that consciousness is determined by the same laws of physics that govern the rest of the universe.

    The unity of consciousness is a complex problem, but it may be solvable. This unity can sometimes break down. Patients who have surgically separated the two hemispheres of the brain have, as it were, two consciousnesses, each of which perceives its own unified picture of the world.

    The second feature of consciousness — subjectivity-is associated with a more complex scientific problem. Each of us lives in a world of unique sensations that are more real to us than the sensations of others. We perceive our thoughts, moods, and feelings directly, while we can only evaluate other people's experiences indirectly, through sight or hearing. So we can ask the following question. Do your reactions to the color blue that you see, or the smell of jasmine that you feel, and the meaning that it all has for you, coincide with my reaction to the color blue that I see, and the smell of jasmine that I feel, and the meaning that it all has for me?

    The problem concerns not only perception as such. The question here is not whether we see very similar shades of the same blue. This is relatively easy to find out by registering the signals of individual nerve cells in the visual system of each. The brain reproduces our perception of an object, but it seems that the perceived object itself (for example, the color blue or the note to the first octave on a piano) has ” corresponding physical properties, such as the wavelength of reflected light or the frequency of sound produced. The question concerns the meaning of these colors and sounds for each of us. We have not yet figured out how the electrical activity of neurons provides the meaning that we attribute to a given color or sound. The fact that each person's conscious experience is unique raises the question of whether it is possible to identify any objective features of consciousness that are common to all of us. If “our feelings end up producing sensations that are entirely “subjective,” then we cannot, according to this argument, arrive at any general definition of consciousness based on personal experience.

    But what from the point of view of philosophy? Take, for example, an interview withThomas Metzinger, Professor of theoretical Philosophy in the field of consciousness and neuroethics.

    • How did philosophy become interested in the study of consciousness?
    • Consciousness is a concept that has a relatively short history dating back to the 1650s. St. Hilda's College was taught by the famous philosopher Katie Wilkes, who noted that 90% of the languages on the planet do not have the word “consciousness”. Naturally, in this context, the question of the importance of studying this concept looks doubtful, but there are reasons.

    Descartes, who in 1650 destroyed all previous ideas about the structure of the human worldview with his concept of cognitive consciousness, was at the origin of the modern concept of consciousness. Descartes ' famous idea is that a body is extended in space, consists of parts and, therefore, can be divided. The mind has no spatial reference and cannot be divided. This idea is the basis of the problem of body and mind. Conscious experience is one of the planes of modern understanding of the problem of the body and mind.

    It is very important to ask yourself the importance of such research. It should be understood that this is just one small tradition in Western philosophy, for which consciousness has become a big problem. People from South America or China, for example, may not ask this question at all and may not understand it. So, of course, this problem is relative. But again, there is a big difference between being awake and being under anesthesia.

    • What is the connection between the classical definition of consciousness and the concept of the ego tunnel that you have developed?
    • As I say at the beginning of my book, there are a few simple problems related to the problem of consciousness. For example, “the one world problem” is a question about why we have the feeling that we live in the same world and in the same situation. This may seem perfectly normal to people, but your brain must have some reason to see the world that way. In classical philosophy, this problem was called the problem of the unity of consciousness. Now we are interested in the question of how global integration occurs in the brain.

    Another problem is “the now problem“. Perhaps not everyone notices this, but the content of our consciousness is neither in the future nor in the past, but always in the present tense. Even if you have a plan for what you will do tomorrow, you have a conscious mental situation “now”in your head. Even if you think back to “what happened to you at the age of six,” you still have a conscious “now” memory in your head. Thus, any conscious experience is always in the present tense. And we need to understand what this means.

    The third problem is the “reality problem“. �Why does everything look so real? Why is it not just my consciousness, but reality? For example, many people think that they open their eyes and see colored objects. Of course, we all know from school physics lessons that there are no colored objects in the world. Every time you experience the sensation of red or green, you are only experiencing a model constructed by your brain, a model of a tree or an apple in your hand. All these qualities (redness, saltiness, coldness) are the walls of the ego tunnel. This is not true for the mind or knowledge, but conscious experience (colors, sounds, feelings) is what is defined in our head. Our knowledge is not, our social interactions are not, our culture is not, but our subjective experience of all this is defined in our heads.�

    This is a very interesting problem — why does someone have such an experience (why is it your thought, and not just a thought; why is it your experience, and not just an experience; who am I who is experiencing this experience?). The most difficult question is whether experience can be naturalized from a first-person perspective. Can we achieve a simplified scientific understanding of this environment, of internal networks? There is not only a model of reality with colors and sounds, but also someone who experiences it.

    • How much does the ego tunnel simplify our perception of reality?
    • Objective reality is much more complex than we see and perceive it. Reality is not only much richer than we consciously experience, but it is also very different. The human nervous system is the product of a million years of evolution. Its goal was not to show reality ” as it is, but to help us survive, to copy our genes “in the most effective way. For example, many animals lack color vision. Human beings have color vision, most likely because it helped our ape ancestors in West Africa distinguish ripe fruit from unripe fruit.

    Current research shows that conscious experience involves a large proportion of self-deception. For example, if you look at your children, ” you will automatically perceive them as smarter and more beautiful than other children. This is not your opinion, not your judgment — you just see it. Most often, we don't even realize how biased and subjective our perception is. It constructs the world we live in. And it's a great piece of luck that it looks so real.

    What would reality be like if a person could perceive it in all its complexity? This would mean having sense organs for cosmic radiation, ultrasound-everything. We would need very strong “cognitive abilities” just to take in all this “information”. I believe that the strength of conscious experience is that it reduces the complexity of reality, that it is a very powerful filter of the external world, which we simply need. Otherwise, your brain must be able to process all this information. Perhaps such things are simply physically impossible for a creature with a physical body.

    If you are interested in an in-depth study of the issue, I suggest a lecture by a neuroscientist �Konstantin Anokhin on the cerebral cortex, the study of neural correlates of consciousness and comatose states:


  7. To answer this question, I suggest that you first get acquainted with the various processes that take place in the mind. For example, with the phylogenetic process of perception development. Briefly, it shows how perception creates emotions and evolves into a purposeful process of creating consciousness. Starting from prokaryotes, where perception is expressed through the sensitivity of antennae, appendages, etc., it moves to more sensory perception, which is complicated in the form of pain, avoidance, aggression, sex, etc. And then to the higher animals who can experience fear anger joy etc In this case, there are many factors at play and processes that work very closely together: perception, emotions ,and activity (for example, according to Leontiev).

    About the second question – well, here from which side to look. If we look from the present time, as if with a retrospective vision, we will see that this is a natural process, because a lot of factors coincided in such a way that in our world we have consciousness.

    If you look from the moment of the birth of life, then of course this is an accident, because no one could have predicted that so many factors would develop in this way.

Leave a Reply