(May 31, 2015 at 11:18 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 31, 2015 at 9:48 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  However where your assertion makes a mystery of psychogony, mine facilitates an explanation: awareness gradually evolved; there was no sudden emergence.

Hmmmm. . . given that evolution happens based on variation or mutation, and given that at some point there was absolutely no mind on the Earth, then how could there not have been sudden emergence?

The effects of variation may be evinced at varying levels of granularity. The idea of a totally new functional part evolving in one step is generally thought to be unlikely. This argument also ignores exaptation, the evolution of a feature for one purpose being pressed into service for another purpose. In short, this is not an argument against a gradual evolution of mind / subjectivity / awareness.

Take a hypothetical scenario. Eye spots are first used to trigger reflexes in the movement of the organism. The eye spot evolves into an eye and is used to detect movement, not just light and dark, in the visual field. A cluster of neurons in the brain gets involved so that the reflexive movement is persistent. The persistence of the movement is reinforced by a feedback loop in the brain re-presenting the image of the stimulus to itself to aid persistence. The eye perception evolves to where it can recognize patterns; each of these patterns stimulates a different movement reflex. The feedback loops get more complex. These feedbacks work by 'strobing' the neurons in the brain associated with activation by signals coming from the eye. Is this not a possible beginnings of awareness and memory, the memories being fixed patterns of feedback from the feedback loops? Is this awareness? Or is it no longer clear where awareness begins and where it leaves off?

(May 31, 2015 at 11:18 am)bennyboy Wrote: I certainly agree that psychogony is a mystery, but evolution doesn't really help us much either.  It's pretty clear to see why the brain evolved, and why people act certain ways; it is much less easy to see why an evolved brain needs to subjectively experience anything.  Are you sure that in this case, it's not just "evolutiondidit" rather than "Goddidit?

The point is not to say "evolutiondidit", but rather to show how it is possible that evolution "couldhavedoneit". The proof still lies in the future, but an immobile obstacle to the puzzle of psychogony has been tentatively removed.

It's called looking for a natural answer because that is the most useful and meaningful kind to find. Anything else is just trading in omens.

(May 31, 2015 at 11:41 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Take a hypothetical scenario.  Eye spots are first used to trigger reflexes in the movement of the organism.  The eye spot evolves into an eye and is used to detect movement, not just light and dark, in the visual field.  A cluster of neurons in the brain gets involved so that the reflexive movement is persistent.  The persistence of the movement is reinforced by a feedback loop in the brain re-presenting the image of the stimulus to itself to aid persistence.  The eye perception evolves to where it can recognize patterns; each of these patterns stimulates a different movement reflex.  The feedback loops get more complex.  These feedbacks work by 'strobing' the neurons in the brain associated with activation by signals coming from the eye.  Is this not a possible beginnings of awareness and memory, the memories being fixed patterns of feedback from the feedback loops?  Is this awareness?  Or is it no longer clear where awareness begins and where it leaves off?

Yes, this is almost the exact kind of argument I was anticipating. In terms of light reception, there definitely must have been a point at which a species with no sensitivity to light suddenly had an individual instance of light sensitivity: specifically, the point at which, for the first time ever, the reception of one or more photons directly affected (even slightly), that organism's behavior. The question I'd have would be-- is there some kind of awareness of this light at that simple level, or is it simply a kind of gimpy mutant reflex? I don't know the answer to this question.

Quote:The point is not to say "evolutiondidit", but rather to show how it is possible that evolution "couldhavedoneit".  The proof still lies in the future, but an immobile obstacle to the puzzle of psychogony has been tentatively removed.

Okay, you and I are still, I believe, working at opposite ends of the micro/macro scale. Let's look at the eye, or even the human body. In purely material terms, the body has evolved through statistical interactions with environmental forces, etc. etc. However, the most fundamental physical particles did not, so far as we know, evolve. Rather, it is the relationships AMONG the particles which evolved. This is my view of mind: that there must be some maximally minimal (lol) thing which can be called "mind," below which there is nothing, and that what we normally refer to as mind-- the perception of shapes, colors, etc. represent a complex interrelationship among instances of that most simple element.

In the end, you might be right-- we might have to agree to disagree. I cannot imagine a gradient between not-mind and mind, anymore than I can imagine a gradient between not-space and space or not-matter and matter. But though nobody yet has said it, my inability to imagine something isn't a good argument against it.

(May 31, 2015 at 8:58 pm)bennyboy Wrote:  The question I'd have would be-- is there some kind of awareness of this light at that simple level, or is it simply a kind of gimpy mutant reflex?  I don't know the answer to this question.

And that's my speculation, that there will be cases where it is impossible to say that it is one or the other (even if this hypothetical may not be such a case).

(May 31, 2015 at 8:58 pm)bennyboy Wrote:  But though nobody yet has said it, my inability to imagine something isn't a good argument against it.

Since we're both just speculating, I'd say we're both venturing beliefs with little support.

There are relatively simple organisms alive today who have light sensitivity or eyespots.  Do either of you think that they have awareness? Euglena could be a candidate for inquiry. Single celled photosynthetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena


Hell...a blade of grass fits this, btw Benn. The above genus uses a photoreceptor to find sunny spots for leisurely basking. I'd say that this sounds like the sort of simple example that might be informative with regards to the question asked without placing it "way back in time" thus facilitating rampant speculation. We can put these under a microscope in the here and now (and we do).

Quote:specifically, the point at which, for the first time ever, the reception of one or more photons directly affected (even slightly), that organism's behavior.

(June 1, 2015 at 8:41 am)Rhythm Wrote: There are creatures today who have simple light sensitivity or eyespots.  Do either of you think that they have awareness?

I think at that level, it would be impossible to separate awareness from "just stuff happening." The two would be the same.

(Not that the two aren't the same at higher orders.)

I'm of a similar opinion, -if- the bar is "when sensory affects behavior", well.....we won't be able to rule many organisms out of the "has awareness" camp. Awareness as proto-qualia would be a fairly ubiquitous trait of life, in that case...from single celled organisms on up. Now, I don't think that this actually tells us that euglena, as a group, is aware, or has mind..but I do think that it shows the manner in which we're approaching the question is lacking. That we may not be able to answer the question of awareness, of qualia, -to our satisfaction- ....if we use that metric.

(though I'm perfectly content to give euglena mind..lol, btw)

What's the difference between a computer program outputting "I exist" on the screen and a human saying "I exist"? I sometimes think part of the problem is that we may be romanticizing the idea of "the mind," trying to make it something that it's not.

A computer with a web cam is not more alive than a computer without one, for example.

Presumably, that the human being has an experience of that which a computer does not.

(June 1, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Presumably, that the human being has an experience of that which a computer does not.

That's a big presumption, I think, no?

Could you clarify "has an experience"?