TPF : Evolution of Consciousness

[Gnomon]

Poll: Evolution of consciousness by natural selection
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/848579

Epiphenomenalism: Consciousness, though real, and though its form is determined by physical events, has no causal power. It doesn't influence behavior. All causes are physical. A full explanation of behavior can be given by a purely physical, third-person description of the objective situation without any appeal to subjective experience. — petrichor

No. Consciousness is partly shaped by physical events, but partly determined by metaphysical (mental) interactions. For example : a motivated physical sperm is obviously alive, but typically shows minimal signs of consciousness : its movement seems to be directed mostly by external forces in the womb, which guide its thrashing toward the uterus, where it accidentally bumps into the oosphere. And its penetration into the egg is controlled primarily by the cell-wall of the ovum. But once the twain have become one, a transformation occurs : motion & control (energy & organization) are combined into a cybernetic organism : input > output > feedback > modified output. Internal & external energy/information are integrated into a teleological system, with a mind/purpose of its own, so to speak.

After that organic system is expelled into the cold cruel world, it becomes an independent operator. At first, the baby is mostly a passive object pushed & pulled by external forces. But it gradually learns to impose its Will, its Purpose, on the outside world. And eventually, that Willpower becomes a goal-directed force-to-be-reckoned-with : e.g. Elon Musk. Few would deny that Musk is a conscious being, and that he has an indomitable Will, focused on whatever mission is currently in his Mind : e.g. rocket to mars. So, the pertinent question here is whether a rocket to mars would happen naturally, or would be the physical expression of a conscious mental map of space-faring humanity, with the ability to escape the effects of its own mis-management of its inherited habitat.

If you think subjective Consciousness is powerless to influence the behavior of other minds, and of mindless matter, don't get between Musk and his mission.


The Causal Efficacy of Consciousness :
Mental causation is vitally important to the integrated information theory (IIT), which says consciousness exists since it is causally efficacious. . . . . The causal efficacy of consciousness is vital to the integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness. IIT opposes eliminativist and illusionist views that deny the ontological existence of consciousness, claiming to the contrary that consciousness is a real feature of the natural world
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7517407/

[Gnomon]

We are conscious, not all causes are physical, and consciousness evolved by natural selection.
30%
We are conscious, not all causes are physical, and consciousness did not evolve by natural selection
35% — petrichor

The two most popular options in this poll accept that Consciousness (C) is an immaterial causal phenomenon, but differ on how it came to be whatever it is : natural selection or other (divine ensoulment?). One option A> views Sentience as an emergent feature of the gradually developing world, while the other B> seems to assume that it is an otherworldly (unnatural) introduction into an otherwise natural process. So, A> is fairly conventional secular philosophy, while B> is closer to religious theology. Is that a fair assessment?

Both A & B seem to reject the definition of Conscious awareness as an Epiphenomenon*1. Which denies that it is an important primary feature of reality, being instead a useless incidental side effect or illusion. The definition below mentions that C remains, after all these years, a peculiar product of unknown etiology --- not observed, but experienced. So part of the problem with discussing C philosophically, is the mystery of its insubstantial existence in a material world.

Epiphenomenalism dismisses the non-physical connection between Being & Knowing as a minor metaphysical quibble, instead of an important physical phenomenon, such as causal Gravity*2 --- also an immaterial mystery, a century after Einstein's definition of Gravity as, not a physical force but metaphysical Geometry. Is that a fair assessment?

So, what have we learned here? That C is a "hard" problem because is is so empty & incorporeal & ethereal? Or that it falls into the crack between Real & Ideal, between Physics & Metaphysics, between Science & Religion?


*1. An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. The word has two senses: one that connotes known causation and one that connotes absence of causation or reservation of judgment about it. ___Wikipedia

*2. Arrow of Causality and Quantum Gravity :
Causality, rather than the arrow of time, may be a more natural discriminant between the past and the future in quantum theories. ___American Physical Society
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 123.171601

[Gnomon]

Consciousness is partly shaped by physical events, but partly determined by metaphysical (mental) interactions. — Gnomon
Clarification: so you are a substance dualist?
If not, what non-trivially distinguishes "physical events" from "metaphysical interactions"?
If so, how do you solve 'the interaction problem' and account for the apparent violation of the physical substance's Conservation Laws (i.e. causal closure)? — 180 Proof

# Substance Dualist? :
No. I'm a Substance Monist. But my hypothetical ultimate substance (EFA) violates your immanentist exclusionary rule.

Although both Matter & Mind are immanent, the Primary Origin of all post-big-bang secondary substances is presumed to be pre-BB. Does Immanentism allow for an eternal "Multiverse", or "Big Bounce" scenarios, powered by endless Energy and controlled by beginingless Laws? If not, then the immanent deity must be self-existent & self-contained, and the BB must be a scientific myth.

In my thesis, the universal substance is EnFormAction : the generic power to transform --- physical Energy being just one instance. Similar to Plato's universal FORM, it transforms from formless immaterial Potential into all Actual material & mental forms in the world : Energy, Matter & Mind. Of course, like Energy, you can't find EFA under a microscope. You can "see" it only via rational inference. It requires imagination. Does Immanentism have a place for metaphysical Imagination?

For example, just as the Big Bang was inferred by tracing current matter/energy patterns backward to a mathematical origin point, +/-14 billion years in the past. My thesis tracks current incarnations of EnFormAction (things & ideas) pointing back toward the original pre-space-time power-source that Plato called FORM. Obviously, that's not a Real thing ; merely an Ideal concept equivalent to an infinite pool of Potential. You also won't find this Aristotelian Substance in science books. If you do ever find it, it will exist only metaphorically in your immaterial mind (ideal), within a material vessel (real).

Note 1 --- I made up a name for my metaphysical force --- EnFormAction --- because immaterial "Energy" has too much Materialistic baggage, and immaterial Spirit has too many Religious impedimenta.
Note 2 --- Your Immanentism seems to be generally similar to my PanEnDeism, except that, like Spinoza's deus sive natura, it assumes that the universe is eternal. In which case, the Big Bang theory must be a scientific myth with no basis in fact. {see image below}
Note 3a --- Immanentism : the belief that the Deity indwells and operates directly within the universe or nature.
Note 3b --- Big Bang - Wikipedia :
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.


# Physical vs Metaphysical :
One traditional distinction between Physical and Metaphysical is that Physical Objects are Real (known via the senses) and Metaphysical Concepts are Ideal (known via reason). Therefore, “Physical Events” are those that are Perceived, and “Metaphysical Interactions” are Conceived. Does that categorization sound "trivial" to you?

Since our animal senses are inherent in human bodies, we seldom have a need to argue about whether we are seeing something Real. But since our Concepts are abstractions from reality, they are always moot, and fodder for philosophy. The waves of light entering our eyes are physical & real (quanta), but the mental image & feeling of color is metaphysical & ideal (qualia).

Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is (essence ; qualia). Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made (malleable stuff). Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.

# The Interaction Problem :
Since Descartes' Dualism drew a do-not-cross line between physical Matter and metaphysical Mind, some have argued that such an impassible barrier prevents those separate domains from interacting. It would also prevent Mind from having any causal effect on Matter. Ironically, that wall-of-separation is just as impassible as the one between Church & State. I have references on Information Causation, if you are interested.

I don't share Descartes' substance dualism. Instead, my thesis postulates that both Mind and Matter are secondary & local instances of an Aristotelian primary & universal Substance (Essence or Genus). That's because my thesis is based on the polymorphic substance now known in physics as shape-shifting Information (energy - matter - mind). I call the Prime Substance EnFormAction : the power to transform (physical Energy being the most familiar causal form).

Since Quantum Physics combined with Information Theory to transform the Certainty & Determinism of classical mechanical Physics into the Uncertainty & Probability of 21st century science, we are now faced with the philosophical consequences of Einstein's Relativity. Hence, the mind of the observer is now a player in the physics game. And mental/mathematical Information can be converted into Energy & Matter, and vice-versa.

My thesis and blog go into extensive detail to describe the steps & stages between Universal Primary Progenitor Substance and its plethora of evolved secondary forms : e.g. Energy ; Matter ; Mind.
For more of my subjective observations and technical references on this topic see the thread on Dualism and Interactionism https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/846487

Spinoza's PanDeism vs Gnomon's PanEnDeism (thanks to
PanEnDeism%20vs%20theisms.jpg

PS___ Early-on, I assumed that your antipathy to my ideas was due to a perceived Materialism vs Spiritualism posture. But now that you have given me another label (Immanentism) I see that the opposing postures are more like Natural vs Supernatural. But my BothAnd position is somewhere in between : both Immanent/Materialistic and Transcendent/Idealistic. Due to our similar-but-different worldviews, our associated vocabularies make communication difficult. So, I don't expect all this literal non-sense verbiage to be convincing.

[Gnomon]

latter-day Scholastic (i.e. -of-the-gaps) of you ...
Of course. Why wouldn't it? — 180 Proof

This is why I can't have a philosophical dialog with you. I take your questions seriously, and provide long detailed answers. But you respond only with scorn, casting disrespectful aspersions on the intelligence & integrity of the questioner. That's an evasive Trump-like political counter-attack, not a Socratic dialogue.

PS___ Apparently your singular alternative to my Substance Monism, is to arbitrarily conflate an immaterial "act of creation" (verb) with its material product : the "creation" (noun). By contrast, my Ultimate substance is both the Power to Act (adverb) and the Potential for created things (adjective). They are attributes known by philosophical reasoning (e.g. Plato & Aristotle), not observed Forces & Objects of physics.