From: jimruttshow8596
Consciousness is one of the most challenging concepts to define [00:18:50]. While individuals experience it directly, its precise nature remains elusive [00:18:56].
Definitions and Fundamental Nature
The Biological Perspective (Jim Rutt’s View)
Jim Rutt aligns with the John Searle view, proposing that consciousness is a specifically biological phenomena that has evolved at least twice on Earth [00:17:33]. This perspective suggests consciousness is the essence of a way of being for organisms with sufficient neuronal support [00:17:47]. It enables the creation of a “movie” in which the organism is a subjective participant, appearing to make choices that affect the world [00:17:51].
Rutt emphasizes a clear distinction between intelligence and consciousness [00:22:29]. For example, a self-driving car, though intelligent and capable of learning, is not conscious because it lacks the architecture for a subjective state [00:20:32]. Similarly, bacteria like E. coli, while intelligent in their adaptive responses, are not considered conscious because they lack neurons and a subjective state [00:22:52].
The Ontological Primitive Perspective (Ian McGilchrist’s View)
Ian McGilchrist finds it inconceivable that something wholly unconscious could give rise to consciousness [00:19:22]. This leads to the view that consciousness cannot evolve out of unconsciousness [00:19:19]. He cites experts like V.S. Ramachandran and Colin Blakemore, who suggest that consciousness may be an ontological primitive, an inherent part of the cosmos that does not originate from anything else [00:19:42].
McGilchrist posits that consciousness is not confined to living things but is a constituent of the cosmos, manifested in different ways and potentially virtually absent in much of the universe [00:30:38]. He argues that saying consciousness “emerges” from biochemistry or matter often serves as a “miracle happens” explanation for something not yet understood [00:28:22]. He highlights that physicists are as unsure about the nature of matter as they are about consciousness at fundamental scales [00:31:20].
Distinguishing Intelligence from Consciousness
Both Jim Rutt and Ian McGilchrist agree that intelligence and consciousness are distinct.
- Intelligence: Can be observed in single cells, like slime molds solving mazes and retaining memory even when fragmented [00:22:22]. Self-driving cars also demonstrate learning and intelligence through swarm learning [00:24:46].
- Consciousness: While animals and even some plants are believed by Ian McGilchrist to be conscious, he doesn’t equate their “intelligence” (e.g., a car’s ability to react to unpredictable situations) with true conscious response [00:21:20].
Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics
Ian McGilchrist notes that some physicists, perhaps 15-20%, believe that consciousness is entangled with quantum mechanics [00:13:55]. This minority view suggests that the conscious observation of quantum systems is involved in their decoherence, or return from a quantum state to a classical state [00:14:10]. McGilchrist indicates that changing one’s attention or consciousness can produce changes in what is observed [00:15:24].
Jim Rutt counters that the vast majority of physicists (around 85%) disagree, asserting that consciousness is not relevant to field collapse [00:16:01]. He emphasizes that quantum mechanics remains deeply debated, with many different interpretations that cannot be distinguished by current experimental evidence [00:06:50].
Emergence vs. Ontological Primitive
The discussion explores whether consciousness is an emergent property or an ontological primitive.
- Emergence: Jim Rutt describes emergence as a new layer where interactions occur, producing higher-level phenomena not easily predictable from lower-level elements [00:32:14]. He argues that while we don’t fully understand how it works, it appears to have happened from biochemistry to life and then to consciousness [00:29:26].
- Ontological Primitive: Ian McGilchrist argues that emergence cannot be used when there is no “little bit of consciousness” or “foreshadowing of consciousness” at a lower level [00:33:55]. He maintains that consciousness is a fundamentally different phenomenon whose essence is “foreign to unconsciousness” [00:36:51].
Consciousness in Non-Human Organisms
The participants discuss the presence of consciousness in various life forms:
- Frogs: Jim Rutt suggests that frogs possess a rudimentary consciousness, akin to a primitive 1982 computer screen, useful for basic tasks like catching flies [00:34:38].
- Plants: Ian McGilchrist believes that certain, perhaps all, plants are conscious [00:36:08]. He agrees that frogs are also conscious [00:36:05].
The Universe’s “Potentia” for Consciousness
McGilchrist introduces the concept of “potentia,” suggesting that the universe contains within it the potential for complex phenomena like consciousness and life [01:02:10]. This doesn’t imply a predetermined design, but rather a “tendency” towards certain outcomes [01:01:50].
This “potentia” implies that the universe is “fertile for life” and consciousness at some level [01:08:08]. The existence of life and consciousness confirms this inherent potential within the cosmos [01:11:00].
Regarding the Fermi Paradox (the contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial intelligence and the lack of evidence), McGilchrist states that the universe being “propitious to life” doesn’t mean it’s propitious everywhere [01:10:15]. The universe is the right size for life to arise on one planet [01:10:48]. He doesn’t believe the paradox provides a definitive answer to the existence of other advanced forms of life or consciousness [01:11:06].