Consciousness: did consciousness evolve? (General)

by David Turell , Thursday, September 26, 2019, 22:58 (1671 days ago) @ David Turell

Egnor says no, because it is not material:

https://mindmatters.ai/2019/09/did-consciousness-evolve/

"So what does it mean to say that consciousness — the first-person experience of “I” — “evolved”? There are at least two reasons why the evolution of consciousness is problematic.

"Let’s look at the first problem: How can natural selection act on something that is not physical? Darwinian natural selection, whatever its worth as a scientific theory, can’t explain how non-physical attributes emerge.

"The reason it can’t is this: In order to “evolve” by Darwinism mechanisms, which is apparently what Graziano means, first-person experience must provide a selective advantage over third-person existence. That is, consciousness must manifest itself physically. Any aspect of consciousness that didn’t manifest itself physically could not evolve because Darwinian natural selection can only act on physical attributes.

"Consciousness can manifest itself physically in only two ways: either consciousness is itself a physical thing, or it is caused by a physical thing.

***

"...if consciousness is non-physical, how could it evolve? Darwinian natural selection can only act on a physical attribute.

"There is another possibility. Darwinian theory could account for non-physical consciousness if consciousness were caused by the brain — that is, if non-physical consciousness were a property of brain activity and thus inextricably linked to brain activity. In that case, the argument is that the brain evolved and consciousness was dragged along because it is linked to brain activity.

"In this view, consciousness is an epiphenomenal property of the brain. Epiphenomenalism was first explicitly proposed by “Darwin’s bulldog” Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895). If consciousness were epiphenomenal to physical brain processes — as a sort of by-product, like smoke from a steam engine — what evolves is the brain. Does this satisfactorily explain the evolution of consciousness?

"The problem with this epiphenomenal view of consciousness is that it renders the mind powerless. If consciousness is merely a property of the brain, it has no agency — no power to cause anything — in itself. Properties can’t do anything. For example, if you hit a nail with a yellow hammer, you hit it with the hammer, not with the yellow. Epiphenomenalism, which is the only framework by which an immaterial consciousness could evolve, asserts that what actually causes us to do things is brain activity. Consciousness is a useless spin-off.

"Let’s sum up the problem with Dr. Graziano’s claim that consciousness is subjective experience and that it evolved:

"Only something physical can evolve. Natural selection can only select attributes that have physical manifestations. If consciousness has no physical manifestation, it can’t evolve.

"However, conscious first-person experience must be non-physical because p[hilosophic]-zombies don’t violate any physical laws, yet we know we are not p-zombies.

"The only way consciousness could be non-physical and still “evolve” is if consciousness were caused by a physical process that could itself evolve.

"If non-physical consciousness were caused by physical processes in the brain, it would be an epiphenomenal property of brain activity.

"Epiphenomenal properties have no causal power in themselves. Properties can’t do anything. So if consciousness is an epiphenomenal property that could evolve, it would have to be ineffective.

"Graziano argues that consciousness is non-physical (subjective experience) and that consciousness evolved; therefore he argues that consciousness is epiphenomenal on brain activity.

"Therefore Graziano’s opinion is not caused by his mind, but merely by his brain, like a reflex or a chemical reaction.

"If Graziano is right, his argument is mindless."

Comment: My approach is that the brain was evolved to a point where is could receive consciousness, the van Lommel theory from cardiac resuscitation evidence. Egnor does not approach it from that type of evidence.