Scientist Argues that Consciousness is Not a Product of Evolution But That It’s the Other Way Around

Interesting, thought provoking article that consciousness is not a product of evolution, but that it's the other way around: https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/neuroscientist-consciousness-didnt-evolve-it-creates-evolution/

Selected quotes:

"What’s behind space and time and physical objects for us is a world of what I call conscious agents or consciousness."

"Consciousness didn’t emerge from a prior physical process of evolution. Consciousness is fundamental and so we have to rethink the whole history of the universe actually from this point of view, from The Big Bang up through evolution. We have to rethink it in terms of how to rewrite that story, consistent with all of our current science but understanding that it’s … consciousness is fundamental, not the physical universe"

*Claims: consciousness is either an illusion or the fundamental basis of reality

I think it's reasonable to say his view of consciousness is marginal, even at the margins of research into Evolution?

Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Yeah, but are you saying that consciousness was there before the process of evolution began?

Donald Hoffman: That’s right. I, you know, I say that with a tremor in my voice. Absolutely so. For me to be entirely consistent, if I’m going to actually say that consciousness is fundamental, then I’m saying that the Big Bang itself is something that has to be understood from within a framework in which consciousness is fundamental. The standard view — and I understand that this is completely non-standard, what I’m saying — the standard view is that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. Eventually, consciousness kind of arose accidentally here on Earth and maybe other places and totally accidentally, that’s right? So my story is completely different.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn: So when I asked the question, how did consciousness emerge through an evolutionary process, your answer is it didn’t.

Donald Hoffman: That’s right. Consciousness didn’t emerge from a prior physical process of evolution. Consciousness is fundamental and so we have to rethink the whole history of the universe actually from this point of view, from The Big Bang up through evolution. We have to rethink it in terms of how to rewrite that story, consistent with all of our current science but understanding that it’s … consciousness is fundamental, not the physical universe.

Am I reading too much into his thinking on this subject or is he proposing a pseudo-religious explanation for practically all of creation? A creator-entity of some description?

If the evidence takes us there, isn't there we want to be? You can read out of a subject by refusing to consider something just as fast as reading into it something you want.

Evidence yes but what evidence? Are we really supposed to believe that a grain of sand is imbued with consciousness?

I'd say it points to the material following the immaterial, not the other way around.

Not religious. I don't think he's religious. But I know this relates to his research work as a cognitive scientist and he also works in philosophy. He sees the 'hard problem of consciousness' as intractable, and no workable scientific explanation for consciousness. So he sees this as a solution. He's a proponent of 'conscious realism.' I confess I don't understand much about the topic but have always wanted to learn more about this. Just need to find the time someday. 

He doesn't see how consciousness can arise from physicalism and finds the problem intractable. So his solution is to propose that instead of physicalism being fundamental reality and everything else arising from physicalism, that it's the other way around that consciousness is what must be fundamental reality. Thus, the 'solution' to the hard problem of the origin of consciousness from physicalism is to say consciousness didn't arise from physicalism. 

Here's the Wikipedia page on him: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

The problem with being unable to make much sense of what someone is proposing is that it's difficult to have a conversation about it.

He's written clearly on the subject and has numerous peer reviewed articles and publications 

I have read summaries of what he's proposing but I struggle to understand quite what he's driving at. As I posted earlier, I really cannot accept that a grain of sand is conscious to some degree.

Can you enlighten us all?

Where are coming up with a grain of sand is conscious?

If consciousness somehow flows through all matter then isn't that matter conscious to some degree?

The only example we know of is our own species and our consciousness is most certainly fastened to the stuff of which we're made. No matter how hard I try, I can't divorce myself from the physical matter of my body, especially my brain.

Yeah, I don't think he's necessarily claiming consciousness flows through matter. He talking about the nature of reality and 'ground of all being' type stuff. And saying that material/physical cannot be fundamental basis for all reality 

One had to come before the other, or they both showed up at the same time, and how anyone could justify that is beyond me.

Always start with what you know! The only source of what we call consciouness is the stuff within our skulls and we haven't discovered any other to date.

That very strongly suggests that it emerges from the activity of the human brain. And just as importantly, remember that we all lose consciousness for up to a third of each day of our lives.

What we know is it is the arrangement of molecules that make up all things, that make a tree a tree, a rock, a rock. What we know is that information is more than just simply being, we read because there is meaning inside of the arrangement of say ink on a piece of paper so it isn't just the molecular structure of the ink and paper, knowing the structure alone isn't enough when it comes to consciousness there is something much more going on.

But it isn't sensible to speculate too far beyond what is known and a substantial amount of evidence indicates that consciousness (whatever that might be) emerges from the activity of the human brain.

If consciousness is separate from that activity why does it cease when we sleep?

Do you dream?

Yes but at most only a small part of the time I'm asleep, in common with everyone else.

You process all types of things and can only do that with consciousness, unlike say a computer which gets fed informational data and is programmed to respond in ways designed by code which is a very narrow form of computation. You contemplate for understanding, a computer doesn't do that its programmed, it does not learn as you do, it doesn't figure things out as you do, you can look at things and ponder the ramifications of it, a computer doesn't do that it computes, it doesn't learn as you do. Going to sleep doesn't remove the question of consciousness, simply being asleep, even dreaming isn't something a computer does regardless of movies like "I robot" or TV shows looking at the life and types of "Data" on Star Trek.

I mentioned sleeping because the interruption to consciousness that it creates strongly suggests that consciousness emerges from the activity of the brain. If it's independent of the functioning of the brain, it's puzzling why we cease to experience it when asleep.

And I think comparisons between organic processes and those created artificially in program-controlled machines are probably very limited and we shouldn't try to take them too far.