[MD] The hard answer.

[Carl Thames]

This has been interesting. I posted the original question, i.e. How does 
consciousness arise from inorganic material, and the responses have been 
increasingly diverse. While there has been a bit of topic drift, which is to 
be expected, I have come to the conclusion that most responders are right, 
they're just right about different aspects of the problem.

The first response was from Mark, who responded off-list. He started his 
studies to determine this very question and ended up with a PhD in brain 
science. He stated, correctly, that much of what we consider the be 
consciousness is based on the structure of the brain itself. i.e. There are 
enough synapses, placed in the proper order, to facilitate this. That could 
be explained by evolution.

Next up was Dan, who described the four levels of quality, which definitely 
applies here. Perhaps more than he realizes. We start with inorganic, which 
describes the structure involved. From there, we go to biological, which 
explains more than just how two cells rub together and produce an outcome 
that's more than the sum of their combined qualities. At that point, he 
arrives at the social, which is central to the argument, imho. Apparently, 
the primary difference between humans and apes is our ability to work 
together to overcome adversity. It appears that apes are too competitive to 
allow that to happen. However, the social aspect wouldn't be enough to 
define or describe consciousness. Chickens have a social order, and I don't 
think anyone would claim that chickens are conscious, at least the way we 
like to think about it. The final determiner seems to be the intellectual. 
This is the real difference. The intellectual level appears to provide us 
with the ability to join together for mutual benefit. We have the ability to 
realize that it's to our benefit NOT to knock our neighbor in the head and 
take what he or she has. In fact, it's to our benefit to stand with that 
neighbor to prevent someone else from knocking him/her in the head. i.e. We 
have the ability to project beyond the immediate. I think that's probably 
what makes the difference. Perhaps what I'm saying is that what we consider 
to be 'consicous' is the ability to foresee consequences beyond the 
immediate.

Humans appear to be the only animals capable of that. I may be wrong, (it's 
happened before) but even with animals that store food, (squirrels leap to 
mind here, and ants) I get the real sense that they're doing it from an 
instinct, rather than rational thought that there is a possibility of 
shortage later.

This perspective also considers the moral aspect of quality. It's in our 
interest to ensure that others of our tribe do well also. At the base of it 
is species survival. We're hardwired for that, I think. It explains why 
those who violate that precept are universally reviled, regardless of 
culture. Humans protect pregnant humans, unless they've been socially 
conditioned not to. Well, enough rambling.

To close, I propse a definiton of consciousness as: "The ability to foresee 
consequences beyond the immediate."

Comments?