Nature of : thinking about two possibilities and their consequences.
We know that we are conscious (at least I am), but we do not know if we HAVE to be conscious (to behave as we do behave).

1. possibility: humans HAVE to be conscious (to behave as we do behave).
-> inference 1: consciousness affects behavior.
-> inference 2: selective pressure affects consciousness, thus it is evolved.
-> inference 3: a philosophical zombie would be distinguishable from a normal person.

2. possibility: humans DON'T have to be conscious (to behave as we do behave).
-> inference 1: consciousness doesn't affect behavior.
-> inference 2: selective pressure doesn't affect consciousness, thus it didn't evolve.
-> inference 3: a philosophical zombie would be indistinguishable from a normal person.

Other two possibilities: consciousness is either fundamental or emergent.

Consciousness compass:
- If it affects behavior (causal) and is fundamental -> physics (e.g. gravity).
- If it affects behavior (causal) and is emergent -> strong emergence (e.g. ??).
- If it doesn't affect behavior (noncausal) and is fundamental -> astral (e.g. soul).
- If it doesn't affect behavior (noncausal) and is emergent -> abstract (e.g. temperature).

Which do you think is?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.