Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

t1_iuf71ve wrote

ok, that's your theory. I can't say it applies to other apparently-conscious things, like crows or dogs, since they aren't social in the ways humans are, so i'm not satisfied with your approach because it doesn't address other forms of consciousness, and it even gets things backwards, because how can unconscious complicated social structures develop anyway?

actually reading the article provides some insight:

“Our theory of consciousness rejects the idea that consciousness initially evolved in order to allow us to make sense of the world and act accordingly, and then, at some later point, episodic memory developed to store such conscious representations,” Budson and his colleagues said in the study. “Our theory is that consciousness developed with the evolution of episodic memory simply—and powerfully—to enable the phenomena of remembering.”

“We posit further that consciousness was subsequently co-opted to produce other functions that are not directly relevant to memory per se, such as problem-solving, abstract thinking, and language,” the team noted. “We suggest that this theory is compatible with many phenomena, such as the slow speed and the after-the-fact order of consciousness, that cannot be explained well by other theories. We believe that our theory may have profound implications for understanding intentional action and consciousness in general.”

Please read the article folks. It's interesting.

39

t1_iufdh9u wrote

It makes total sense from a development point of view.

For example my dogs have excellent memory of objects, people, places and where to find things, because they need it. I wouldn't say they do much abstract thinking or self reflection... The need to evolve memory comes before problem solving.

On the other hand, this theory implies every animal that is capable of memory is also conscious. So whether they are self aware or not they experience events as they happen in much the same way that we do.

13

t1_iufedsr wrote

it's exhausting that threads about this type of research devolve into everyone's personal thoughts.

The article involves experts in this field. Let's talk about them instead of your thoughts.

−13

t1_iugjip4 wrote

He’s using an analogy to illustrate what the article is stating, that’s not “personal thoughts” it’s a discussion of the topic.

Good lord this sub is riddled with folks not even trying to understand.

3