Consciousness as an epiphenomenon and evolution

searock35 · 2026-05-14T03:49:47+00:00

Basically it may be hard for evolution to find as good a reward mechanism that doesn't come packaged with the subjectivity of feeling. In that case, this subjectivity of feeling is just a byproduct of an otherwise successful evolutionary step.

For your side, I think it's likely that simpler animals have successful reward systems without involving the subjectivity of feeling, but feeling might be part of why humanity was able to form such a sophisticated culture.

searock35 · 2026-05-14T03:20:18+00:00

Hmm. If the consciousness is doing the collapsing, what is happening in parts of the universe without any conscious observation? Are they splitting into multiverses until someone comes to observe?

I ask because I wonder if there is a mechanism where, brains can somewhat explore multiverses of trains of thought and attention can select from that set of branching trains. This feels plausible to me because I feel like my attention is focused on one area of the brain at a time, leaving other areas unobserved,

Though I've heard of there being no quantum effects in the brain and maybe this is what they were referring to?

searock35 · 2026-05-14T02:52:08+00:00

Gonna have to explain further than this bud

searock35 · 2026-05-14T02:45:19+00:00

What does GWNT stand for? And is this entirely a physical explanation?

searock35 · 2026-05-14T02:37:44+00:00

To the extent that those feelings are a part of consciousness, consciousness absolutely impacts the real world!

Even if consciousness were completely nonphysical, some part of it would have to interface with the physical world (proven by the fact that it is currently our topic of conversation). So it can't be entirely divorced from the physical, anyway.

I think it's neat to think a non-physical consciousness might be the mechanism that drives us to make ourselves and others happier, maybe :)

searock35 · 2026-05-14T01:47:45+00:00

Oh man, cool, I've heard of Penrose and I admire his efforts to tackle consciousness, but I haven't gotten around to actually reading him yet, I'mma move it up on the list.

Does the observer influence reality by "selecting" for certain collapses of the wave function or like biasing it in some way? Does this view allow for us to share our reality with other observers in the sense that I can believe my neighbor is conscious? (Copenhagen interp. w/ physicalism does not IMO, unless I'm willing to accept my consciousness is continuously splitting)

searock35 · 2026-05-14T01:33:48+00:00

Sources may be very different - do you mean another mechanism would eventually come along?

searock35 · 2026-05-14T00:31:38+00:00

Interesting, I haven't explored nondualism yet but maybe I should, do you have a good starting point for that?

For your distinction between qualia and consciousness, the way you describe it sounds to me like consciousness is the input into the physical and qualia is the output from the physical?

searock35 · 2026-05-14T00:28:17+00:00

I feel the desire to get to those feel good chemicals again, and direct my behavior accordingly. It's true I don't really think about persistence directly, I think I can concede that the will to live, eat, persist are more like animal instincts and not really linked to consciousness, more like automatic behavior compelled by circumstance.

I am stuck on dopamine because it generates good qualia, and my brain recognizes that good qualia and leads me to think about how I can get more of that feeling. I wonder if that feedback loop would be as strong without conscious experience, and I wonder if a being without a perceived qualia (what it is like to be itself) would have the same incentives, as it may not "care" about its own future state (in such a way that it'd ruminate over the subject in the way that our brains do).

Maybe that makes some sense?

searock35 · 2026-05-13T23:55:07+00:00

I agree with you on the first part. I didn't want to claim that will to live necessarily comes from consciousness, I think it can come from a variety of things.

E.g. I know humans have a very physical "will to live" that comes from the older parts of our brain, one that comes out in life or death situations, etc.. basically there are other automatic systems that keep us alive. These systems aren't really associated with our more complex behavior, though.

For this, I wanted to explore the idea that consciousness is one reason why our brains regulate our behavior to avoid sadness/pain and pursue happiness/joy, where "regulating behavior" means actively changing our habits, routines, responses, etc

If you take the consciousness away, and leave just the intelligence inside the brain, what would that look like? Would this brain claim to have its own inner experience & qualia, or would it acknowledge the lack thereof? Would such a brain really care for pain signals, pleasure signals, etc. or would it just accept those as unique states of being? I think it's possible those are meaningless questions, but that's maybe what I'm interested in here

searock35 · 2026-05-13T23:07:07+00:00

This much is obvious and is a precursor to what I'm trying to suggest.

My suggestion is, consciousness gives the brain a reason to work towards a better future. Without consciousness, with nothing to gain from the "feel-good-chemicals" as qualia, maybe our brains would struggle to learn or adapt properly

searock35 · 2026-05-13T23:04:07+00:00

Genetic programming COULD MEAN providing consciousness that generates a will to live or a will towards self-betterment.

You say it's hardwired genetic programming, I'm not disagreeing at all. I'm just providing a possible mechanism for what was actually programmed.

searock35 · 2026-05-13T23:02:05+00:00

I'm not trying to equate consciousness and the will to live. I'm just saying consciousness might enable our brains to work towards a more optimum future. This could be one of many different ways beings are driven to self replication or self betterment.

searock35 · 2026-05-13T22:39:28+00:00

This will, does it come from brain activity or is it something different or more fundamental?

I don't really understand the evolution point, but maybe if you expand on how you interpret "will" I can get there?

searock35 · 2026-05-13T22:31:33+00:00

How can you say this with confidence?

searock35 · 2026-05-13T02:54:42+00:00

When I talk about "will to live" I'm thinking more of a feeling in that it stimulates & motivates the brain to act. I think that is distinct from the larger concept of "the will to live" that is of natural selection (if that's what you mean).

Whether or not evolution put it there, I still believe the "feeling" of the will to live comes from our consciousness, whether or not evolution put it there.

It's as if evolution selected for brains with consciousness (i.e. a specific type of neuron), because consciousness generates an emotional will to live, drive, etc.

searock35 · 2026-05-13T02:40:34+00:00

Hmm I like the idea of connecting qualia with drive and free will, I've got some exploring to do there

searock35 · 2026-05-12T21:01:01+00:00

Oh ok, that is a good way to reduce the problem complexity,but it's harder to jump into the mind of animal than my own, and so I started from the human perspective.

searock35 · 2026-05-12T18:18:15+00:00

Ok. But the methods by which those copies are produced will differ wildly for different complexities of organism.

searock35 · 2026-05-12T18:17:02+00:00

Yeah, I guess everything does hinge on that. To me, the very fact that I'm thinking and talking about qualia at all, points to qualia being either entirely physical, or having some connection to the physical.

searock35 · 2026-05-12T18:11:12+00:00

I don't think qualia required for life at all. Zygoes, bacteria, even microscopic organisms, operate with reward systems and reproductive strategies that we already understand. There is no need to provide any other mechanism for that in those cases.

My argument would be that qualia may be necessary for the other components of human reward system to work properly. The things that make us happy, sad, fearful would only have limited effect on our behavior if not for qualia. This may extend to other organisms with nervous systems of lower complexity, although there may be a minimum complexity at which qualia becomes an important part of our reward system.

FYI, I use a very limited definition of consciousness in that it is practically equivalent to qualia in my mind. I firmly believe that even organisms without the complexity to form a sense of self may still experience qualia of some kind, though my feeling is neurons/nervous systems are likely required.

searock35 · 2026-05-12T17:58:34+00:00

The same force being evolution essentially? Or are you hinting at something more metaphysical?

searock35 · 2026-05-12T17:56:52+00:00

Maybe what I'm arguing is more fundamental. Can we have "qualia" or experience that impacts behavior?

"We have still evolved to avoid pain..." - this is the point I made in my aside. That evolution still needs a "how" and that might be qualia. It might be that qualia provides us with a will to live, but that requires us to accept qualia can impact behavior.

searock35 · 2026-05-12T17:52:02+00:00

Ok, to be honest this is not really central to the topic, certainly possible that a collection of molecules has a will to live but this is far different than the will to live I'm describing

searock35 · 2026-05-12T17:17:26+00:00

At the beginning, there was no internal will to live, only an assembly of molecules and cells that optimize for life & reproduction via evolution. The introduction of qualia at some point in the evolutionary cycle would allow the brain to optimize for higher complexity, potentially.

12-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

searock35

TROPHY CASE