So they’re saying the cause/purpose of consciousness is to reduce all the input data into a way to communicate with other humans via speech? Weird. That also makes the strange assumption that only humans, or beings that need to communicate, would have consciousness.
It seems fairly reasonable to suppose that any organism with sensory inputs that can act independently (perceive its environment and interact with it) would have to have some kind of consciousness to operate through. IOW to interpret the input signals and form a kind of mental model out of them. Regardless of how simple or complex that consciousness may be or whether communication might be involved.
There’s just no actual reason behind that except taking your own conscious thought process as a prime example.
And you’re ignoring the reality that a ton of stuff going on in your mind isn’t conscious at all, it’s not a part of any mental model, your heart just keeps beating for example. And plenty of non-repetitive actions you can take without thinking, knee reflex jerk for example, the signals don’t even hit your brain stem before your leg kicks out reflexisively.
First and foremost, consciousness requires a model of self, but that’s not required at all, trees and other plants are clear examples of living beings that have no mental model at all. But, they have sensory input and reactions.
“And you’re ignoring the reality that a ton of stuff going on in your mind isn’t conscious at all, …”
Yes, I was ignoring that aspect because the subject was about consciousness. Of course that doesn’t mean the the subconscious isn’t also operating from a mental model or process, just because we’re not consciously aware of it.
“First and foremost, consciousness requires a model of self, but that’s not required at all, …”
I didn’t say a model of self was required, but just some kind of mental model–which is probably not the best way of putting it but I don’t know all the proper scientific terminology. Maybe it is, if you define consciousness as being aware of what is “self” vs. what is “not-self”. I’m not sure it is, at least in the simplest cases.
“… trees and other plants are clear examples of living beings that have no mental model at all. But, they have sensory input and reactions.”
Plants (or at least the part of the plant being affected) can react to a stimulus, but I think that can easily be explained as happening through a mechanical and/or chemical reaction locally. I wouldn’t call that kind of stimulus a “sensory input”. If it was, then what would the sense organ or means of receiving or transmitting the sensory input be, and what would it be that receives or processes the input? There’s no nervous system or comparable structure.
Anyway no one can even define what consciousness really is. I just thought the comic’s view of consciousness was oddly specific and highly unlikely.
Yes, you’re ignoring subconscious processes, but their existence directly contradicts the assertion that, “It seems fairly reasonable to suppose that any organism with sensory inputs that can act independently (perceive its environment and interact with it) would have to have some kind of consciousness to operate through”
that can easily be explained as happening through a mechanical and/or chemical reaction locally. I wouldn’t call that kind of stimulus a “sensory input”. If it was, then what would the sense organ or means of receiving or transmitting the sensory input be, and what would it be that receives or processes the input? There’s no nervous system or comparable structure.
The sense organs are the plants’ exterior/bark, just like we have skin. And what is the nervous system if not mechanical and/or chemical reactions? Sure, we fire calcium ions along chains of nerves, and plants fire calcium ions along chains mechanoreceptors. Again, i challenge you to think outside your human experience – the way you think, the way i think, those are just tiny examples in the potential universe of the ways any living being could sense, calculate and act.
![Consciousness [SMBC]](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1780787893-20260607.png){kind=link}
So they’re saying the cause/purpose of consciousness is to reduce all the input data into a way to communicate with other humans via speech? Weird. That also makes the strange assumption that only humans, or beings that need to communicate, would have consciousness.
It seems fairly reasonable to suppose that any organism with sensory inputs that can act independently (perceive its environment and interact with it) would have to have some kind of consciousness to operate through. IOW to interpret the input signals and form a kind of mental model out of them. Regardless of how simple or complex that consciousness may be or whether communication might be involved.
There’s just no actual reason behind that except taking your own conscious thought process as a prime example.
And you’re ignoring the reality that a ton of stuff going on in your mind isn’t conscious at all, it’s not a part of any mental model, your heart just keeps beating for example. And plenty of non-repetitive actions you can take without thinking, knee reflex jerk for example, the signals don’t even hit your brain stem before your leg kicks out reflexisively.
First and foremost, consciousness requires a model of self, but that’s not required at all, trees and other plants are clear examples of living beings that have no mental model at all. But, they have sensory input and reactions.
Yes, I was ignoring that aspect because the subject was about consciousness. Of course that doesn’t mean the the subconscious isn’t also operating from a mental model or process, just because we’re not consciously aware of it.
I didn’t say a model of self was required, but just some kind of mental model–which is probably not the best way of putting it but I don’t know all the proper scientific terminology. Maybe it is, if you define consciousness as being aware of what is “self” vs. what is “not-self”. I’m not sure it is, at least in the simplest cases.
Plants (or at least the part of the plant being affected) can react to a stimulus, but I think that can easily be explained as happening through a mechanical and/or chemical reaction locally. I wouldn’t call that kind of stimulus a “sensory input”. If it was, then what would the sense organ or means of receiving or transmitting the sensory input be, and what would it be that receives or processes the input? There’s no nervous system or comparable structure.
Anyway no one can even define what consciousness really is. I just thought the comic’s view of consciousness was oddly specific and highly unlikely.
Yes, you’re ignoring subconscious processes, but their existence directly contradicts the assertion that, “It seems fairly reasonable to suppose that any organism with sensory inputs that can act independently (perceive its environment and interact with it) would have to have some kind of consciousness to operate through”
The sense organs are the plants’ exterior/bark, just like we have skin. And what is the nervous system if not mechanical and/or chemical reactions? Sure, we fire calcium ions along chains of nerves, and plants fire calcium ions along chains mechanoreceptors. Again, i challenge you to think outside your human experience – the way you think, the way i think, those are just tiny examples in the potential universe of the ways any living being could sense, calculate and act.