Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis

[Won2blv]

I want to begin by making some basic assumptions. If you feel any are wrong then please let me know. Also, If anything sounds like woo, please specify that as well. Its still long but I'm trying to simplify the ideas. And the last paragraph is just a side point. So sorry if it still is too long

Assumptions:

1. All products of biological evolution, no matter how far advanced, have an early rudimentary base that become more and more sophisticated.
2. Evolution used information from its surrounding ecosystem to naturally select mechanisms that could make its products more efficient.
3. Our brains today serve as an advanced movie theater. Its not that what we see is an illusion, but rather it is a prediction made by our brain. This includes everything we perceive, physical and meta physical.
4. Whether or not a God or godlike figure exist, evolution was never directed by an outside intelligence. All advances in evolution, whether they were conscious, subconscious, accidental, or just plain dumb luck, only had an information data set that was based in our closed system of earth. (I feel like I could word that better if anyone has a suggestion)

So, if you assume all of those are true, then that means our consciousness is also a far advanced product of evolution. The Hard Problem of consciousness is like the GOP's hard problem of voter fraud. You can make it a problem, and support with subjective facts, but it is not a real problem.

The better question is this, how come we have such a Hard Problem with accepting consciousness as merely, just another evolutionary advancements, like the eye, brain, or blood.

Isn't consciousness nothing more than our brain making billions and trillions of instant predictions? I am looking outside my window and see mountains, trees, cars, and children right now. Every single thing I listed, is a physical entity but what I am actually "seeing" is an image. Our personal evolution has gotten so efficient and sophisticated, that it enables us to be constantly aware of everything around us. Its like google, when you search a question, you can almost always hit "i'm feeling lucky" and you'll probably find the answer you're looking for. This isn't because the google algorithm isnt conscious, or wise, or anything other than a really concise prediction machine for the internet.

It makes sense that our brain has found ways to "outsource" functions of a body. That way, the brain doesn't have to "think" about it. I don't have to command my heart to pump blood, and I don't have the ability to command it to stop. Our brains evolved to have a subconscious that takes care of the everyday maintenance, and a "fore-concscious" The evolutionary use of being conscious is obvious if you consider how big of an advantage it is to be able to learn how to even more efficiently make use of our surroundings.

So that maybe doesn't explain qualia. If you agree with my 4 assumptions, then all of qualia would be another evolutionary product that is rooted in a very basic function. I think of it this way, if our brain is just simply an information processor, then qualia is like the information that has been analyzed and processed so much that it is now whittled down to the point where it doesn't need a visual symbol to understand it. Qualia is so hard to explain in words, because we can only explain with feelings. Then in turn, its hard to explain how a feeling makes you feel without using another feeling. It reminds me of an elementary school teacher that would ask for the definition of the word, and then she would say, "and don't use the word in the definition."

We are far advanced but we're still in the infant stages of truly understanding our universe, let alone the intricacies of biological evolution. Again though, if you agree with all 4 assumptions, then you know there isn't anything special about us, other than we are a little more advance than our closest relatives, but even that is subjective. So, instead of focusing on the question of qualia as a mystery, it would be better to focus on how it can help explain our biological evolution. Scientists for the last few hundreds of years have made cosmological advances of understanding. Sometimes, they discovered forces that we're unknown and mysterious. But the scientists didn't sit and ponder just simply why it was, they wanted to know what it was. These mysterious forces are the key to cosmological evolution, I believe qualia is the key to understanding our cognitive evolution.

As a side point, I still believe that our cognition only feels like a mystery because we feel alone on the earth when it comes to advanced cognition. We have a the same skills as a lot of animals, we just happened to be able to hone that skill to an advanced degree. I have a window washing business. People often tell me how easy I make it look. I find it humorous because to me it is easy. Then when I try to teach someone, its frustrating when they can't just simply replicate what I am doing. I never think, though, am I special because I'm such a great window cleaner but the rest of the world isn't? I just simply honed a skill from experience and learning how to be optimally efficient, and optimally qualitative. Then you have someone like Tiger Woods, in the evolutionary world, it would seem like my skill as a window cleaner would be more beneficial than a good golf swing. Some could say though, that Tiger Woods treatment as a celebrity and demigod of golf, could have led to his downfall. Because in the end, even if you're the greatest golfer in the world, if you cheat on your wife with a million girls, she is going to come after you with one of your golf clubs to stick up your ass.

We're just out of touch with nature. Some more than others. We forget that we're just the latest product from EvolutionInc.

---

I just want to add one other point. The reason why many theists feel more at ease with qualia and the unknown forces of our mind, is because they have a satisfying answer. This might be beneficial for feeling more at ease with the mystery, but its not useful for understanding it. Kind of like them thinking the earth was the center of the universe. This might have been a satisfying answer to the physical world around them, but it stifled their advancement in scientific knowledge.

[The Grand Nudger]

Similar sentiments are expressed by people who hold a view comparable to Dennet, in that the hard problem of consciousness isn't a hard problem, if it's a problem at all...and that the solution to that problem would be the sum total of the solutions to all of the easy problems...which they don't think are easy in the first place.  

In sum, a manufactured and perhaps even diversionary dilemma.

[DLJ]

...
Assumptions:
 
  1. All products of biological evolution, no matter how far advanced, have an early rudimentary base that become more and more sophisticated.
...

All extant biological entities are equally advanced ... in that they are all the end result of the 'fitness equation'.  So, in terms of 'time', they are equally advanced but in terms of the number of generations one could argue that bacteria are more advanced.  Just saying that 'advanced' is a dangerous word and smacks of anthropocentrism.  

...
Assumptions:
  ...
  2. Evolution used information from its surrounding ecosystem to naturally select mechanisms that could make its products more efficient.
...

The language here is poetic (which is nice) but not accurate.  There's an implication of 'purpose' in the way this is worded.  Better to stick to 'adaptation', 'natural selection' and 'fitness'.

...
Assumptions:
...
  3. Our brains today serve as an advanced movie theater. Its not that what we see is an illusion, but rather it is a prediction made by our brain. This includes everything we perceive, physical and meta physical.
...

Hmmm.  I'd avoid the word 'theatre' as it might lead a reader into homunculus-territory.  But predictive modelling is right.
We only need 3 simulators ... self, other and future.

...
Assumptions:
...
  4. Whether or not a God or godlike figure exist, evolution was never directed by an outside intelligence. All advances in evolution, whether they were conscious, subconscious, accidental, or just plain dumb luck, only had an information data set that was based in our closed system of earth. (I feel like I could word that better if anyone has a suggestion)
...

I'm not sure you need this one at all.  Earth is not a closed system (unless you're saying that you don't think that the sun and moon have any affect on the environment ) ... in which case this is a repeat of assumption 1.

...
     So, if you assume all of those are true, then that means our consciousness is also a far advanced product of evolution. The Hard Problem of consciousness is like the GOP's hard problem of voter fraud. You can make it a problem, and support with subjective facts, but it is not a real problem.
...

Nice analogy.

I think it's easier to see things from the perspective of silicon based 'life-forms' ... or to put it another way, let's think of ourselves as non-artificial intelligent agents. What do we need for that?

Hardware, an Operating System, Software Programs, Application Programs and then data (that is input).

As an example, we can say that desires (hunger, thirst, disgust, lust etc.) are in the OS, beliefs are in the software, deism is the app and a particular brand of theism (e.g. catholicism etc.) is the data entry.

Or English Language is an App and vocabulary is the data.
You get the idea.

A 'capacity to believe' (the ability to 'represent' a concept) is innate i.e. built into the operating system (by evolution) but 'what gets believed' (the actual concept) is the software that's loaded in our informative years. This means we also need to take into account the upload process itself i.e. childhood development.

But for IT Management and Governance we also need:
Monitoring Software
Event Management Software
Risk Management methods.

Creatures that were not very good at developing rudimentary risk management software were simply not very good at being ancestors. Or, at least, not our ancestors.

Note: If you are not comfortable with the software analogy, i.e. what if it was different ... can one make these assumptions about the evolution of desires and beliefs? I ask this:
What if we had a different operating system?
Think about it this way ... what would computers be like if the dominant intelligent computer-creating species were not as dependent on vision and more dependent on, like dogs, smell.
Or how about dolphins? Underwater computers operated using echo technology?

Anyway, consciousness can be represented in this analogy as a Virtual Machine (VM) or as I mentioned above 3 VMs (self, other and future) to enable predictive modelling.

The event detection software gives us our ability to increase focus of attention when our sensors (taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing, balance and proximity etc.) generate an alert.

These alerts are still happening when we sleep (why else would there be a market for alarm clocks?) but at a more primitive level.  Even plants can do this.  It's just that plants don't have the evolved VMs to be able to 'represent' (attach a reason) to the event.

...
The better question is this, how come we have such a Hard Problem with accepting consciousness as merely, just another evolutionary advancements, like the eye, brain, or blood.
...

Beats me.  Because we're special?  Because god?  I dunno.  

...
Isn't consciousness nothing more than our brain making billions and trillions of instant predictions?
...

Yes and no.  It is that but as part of a system (as described above).

...
It makes sense that our brain has found ways to "outsource" functions of a body. That way, the brain doesn't have to "think" about it. I don't have to command my heart to pump blood, and I don't have the ability to command it to stop. Our brains evolved to have a subconscious that takes care of the everyday maintenance, and a "fore-concscious" The evolutionary use of being conscious is obvious if you consider how big of an advantage it is to be able to learn how to even more efficiently make use of our surroundings.     
...

...
Not 'outsource'; in-source.  All living organisms can do the homeostasis stuff and the " if hunger; then feed" routine.  The stomach is often referred to as our first brain.  We're not much more than food processors really.
There's a happy thought.

'Sub-conscious' is merely a convenient label for the primitive alert / pattern recognition systems that operate without the need of  the consciousness VMs.

I have no idea what you mean by 'fore-conscious'.

So, in summary, by and large, yes, I agree with you.

[Won2blv]

Similar sentiments are expressed by people who hold a view comparable to Dennet, in that the hard problem of consciousness isn't a hard problem, if it's a problem at all...and that the solution to that problem would be the sum total of the solutions to all of the easy problems...which they don't think are easy in the first place.  

In sum, a manufactured and perhaps even diversionary dilemma.

I think that the center of my theory is that our consciousness is our oldest evolutionary system. Whatever makes us, "living" is our consciousness. It was obviously very, very, very, rudimentary in the early stages, but so was the eye and the heart.

I know this definitely sounds like woo. But just think about it with an open mind, if my theory that consciousness is as old as life itself, then that means consciousness is what centers us to the very earliest organism. I am trying to not make it sound like god, but all of evolutionary creation would have come from that center. There has always been a force that has a need to survive. The earliest adaptations were minor and accidental, but as those accidents kept happening, slowly life was able to be more and more aware of itself and its needs, because of the evolutionary advantage.

    We know that we're here because we're lucky. Something about earth was just hospitable for life. Life appeared early on the scene, but it took a massive amount of time, just to be capable of becoming a larger organism. Consciousness was like Homer Simpson going doh, doh, doh, doh, doh, woohoo. Slowly the doh's were avoided and the woohoos were capitalized on.

   The reason why I'm so excited about this idea, is because I think it could be used as effective cognitive therapy. Part of the problem with therapy is that we're trying to take someones "mysterious" deep seeded feelings and readjust them. I think that therapist should take into consideration, the evolution of qualia when analyzing patients. Therapists are trained to try and fix mental issues by analyzing the persons life experience. But they're only analyzing this life, not the trillions of lives that got us here.

     What makes more sense, that we have mental problems, strictly because of something that happened in our short life, that is a blip of a blip of a blip on the grand evolutionary timeframe? We tend to look at the evolutionary tree mainly as a bodily evolution. But we don't consider that our cognition and consciousness have been the driving force of those bodily changes. Evolution is not a mechanism to reach an optimal point or perfection, its just simply a mechanism to keep living. I used this comparison already but I like it so here it goes again, our consciousness started out with a lemonade stand just hoping for a few quarters here and there but now its Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenn Ross

[bennyboy]

I think that the center of my theory is that our consciousness is our oldest evolutionary system. Whatever makes us, "living" is our consciousness. It was obviously very, very, very, rudimentary in the early stages, but so was the eye and the heart.

I know this definitely sounds like woo. But just think about it with an open mind, if my theory that consciousness is as old as life itself, then that means consciousness is what centers us to the very earliest organism.

What is the critical mass or evolutionary moment at which non-conscious goes to conscious, in your view? What's the most primitive system, structure or event that can be conscious?

[DLJ]

...
I think that the center of my theory is that our consciousness is our oldest evolutionary system. Whatever makes us, "living" is our consciousness. It was obviously very, very, very, rudimentary in the early stages, but so was the eye and the heart.
...

That all depends on what one considers consciousness to be. I think you need to decide upon a working definition.

Yes, its roots are in the early molecular structures that formed proto-cells (everything is) but consciousness as a system (of pattern recognition and event detection) is a fairly recent evolutionary adaptation.

[chimp3]

@won2blv: 

You are summarizing evolutionary theory and neuroscience. Why is this your hypothesis? You make interesting points but they are echoing current science findings.

[The Grand Nudger]

     What makes more sense, that we have mental problems, strictly because of something that happened in our short life, that is a blip of a blip of a blip on the grand evolutionary timeframe?

.......Yes?

Let's say that you have a phobia. You're afraid of the dark. Now....all of your peers come equipped with the same evolutionary apparatus and history, but they aren't afraid of the dark. Clearly, the problem has it's origin with the individual. Now sure, there are some ticks of the mind that seem to be uniform to human beings and we can attribute those to our common biological heritage, and we do. These things aren't ignored by therapists.

[Won2blv]

I think that the center of my theory is that our consciousness is our oldest evolutionary system. Whatever makes us, "living" is our consciousness. It was obviously very, very, very, rudimentary in the early stages, but so was the eye and the heart.

I know this definitely sounds like woo. But just think about it with an open mind, if my theory that consciousness is as old as life itself, then that means consciousness is what centers us to the very earliest organism.

What is the critical mass or evolutionary moment at which non-conscious goes to conscious, in your view?  What's the most primitive system, structure or event that can be conscious?

In my view, humans are like Bill Murray in Groundhog day. They just started realizing that because life kept repeating, they could starting honing more and more specialized skills. Especially when humans invented ways to take knowledge from the immaterial, to the material like writing, they were able to grow even more. Bill Murray is stuck in the loop but he can't explain it to anyone, because he is the only one with the experience to comprehend it

---

...
I think that the center of my theory is that our consciousness is our oldest evolutionary system. Whatever makes us, "living" is our consciousness. It was obviously very, very, very, rudimentary in the early stages, but so was the eye and the heart.
...

That all depends on what one considers consciousness to be.  I think you need to decide upon a working definition.

Yes, its roots are in the early molecular structures that formed proto-cells (everything is) but consciousness as a system (of pattern recognition and event detection) is a fairly recent evolutionary adaptation.

That is what I'm saying though, It doesn't matter how concise or how abstract you get with your definition. Whatever you think your conscious is, is an evolutionary advancement billions of years in the making

---

@won2blv: 

You are summarizing evolutionary theory and neuroscience. Why is this your hypothesis? You make interesting points but they are echoing current science findings.

I expect you to be skeptical of this statement, but please just hypothetically believe its true. I thought of all of this in just the past 5 or 6 days. I am not college educated, I was one of Jehovah's witnesses up until last year that didn't believe in evolution, and I wash windows for a living. I had never heard of Attention Schema Theory or any of the periphery around it.

I am not claiming that there is a damn thing special about me or my specific brain. Our brains our like software. Humans are still on software version 1, but each human is an even more specific subset. So for whatever reason, because, I am version 1.34958539290b my brain was able to untangle this subject in a short amount of time.

[DLJ]

That all depends on what one considers consciousness to be.  I think you need to decide upon a working definition.

Yes, its roots are in the early molecular structures that formed proto-cells (everything is) but consciousness as a system (of pattern recognition and event detection) is a fairly recent evolutionary adaptation.

That is what I'm saying though, It doesn't matter how concise or how abstract you get with your definition. Whatever you think your conscious is, is an evolutionary advancement billions of years in the making
...

Of course. But what I'm saying is don't equate an abacus with a pocket calculator with the Hubble telescope.

When we were prokaryotes we didn't have the hardware yet or the software or the VMware.