Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution of consciousness
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 15:21:31 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v1040r$3s8fe$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v0paug$21fia$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="96646"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Siv9tBtyNokhoEkeIxrFdoGfQa4=
In-Reply-To: <v0paug$21fia$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3310

On 30/04/2024 01:36, Mark Isaak wrote:
> My views on the evolution of consciousness are starting to gel.
> 
> 1. Rudimentary nervous systems evolve.
> 2. Brains evolve, capable of memory and of decisions other than reflex.
> 3. Those decisions probably work better if the brain has a model of the 
> world to work with. So such a model evolves.
> 4. Some creatures live socially. Their brains need a model of that 
> important aspect of the world: the fellow beings one lives with, 
> including how they think.
> 5. So we've now got a model of minds. How about if we apply it to *our 
> own mind*? That might make our thinking about interactions with others' 
> minds more efficient.
> 6. Viola! Consciousness!
> 
> Does that make sense to people?  Is it time for me to write a book on 
> the subject? (Do you think publishers will want the book to be more than 
> 106 words long?)
> 
> There's also the problem of testing it. I'm open to suggestions there, 
> too. Step 4 implies that the model of how we think need not agree with 
> how we think, much as the mental model of our world is flat, not 
> spherical. This has at least some confirmation (e.g., blindness to many 
> biases). More would be better.
> 

Have you seen my thread on Michael Tomasello's "The Evolution of 
Agency"? I think the book would interest you. If you want more detail I 
have a post somewhere in that thread summarizing its arguments, I'd be 
happy to hear your take.