I came to the "consciousness is an evolutionary advantageous adaptation" conclusion in High School too, and it sorta sent me into a death spiral in terms of academics. When the idea that we're all ultimately just bags of chemicals that are subjectively aware of our existence really kicked in, I completely lost touch with schoolwork and any "purpose" I had felt earlier. Ultimately, I think irrationality plays an important role in thinking about our own existence and it rationalizing everything down to its core isn't necessarily helpful.
The book 'Blindsight' by Peter Watts argues the opposite, that (some degree of) consciousness may have been advantageous in the past, but it has since become a parasite that is holding humanity back; humans would be smarter, faster, and more efficient without it.
While the book is science fiction, it does make an interesting case, and some of it is grounded in actual research.
That was one of the most interesting ideas I came across while reading science fiction. The exact reason I like this genre. I still think about it today. Why does intelligence need consciousness? Does it really? Evolution is full of sup-optimal solutions, consciousness may very well belong to this category. Highly recommend the book.
Off topic:
There was also another book that made it clear to me, that "the stars do not belong to mankind". Something about the spiritual awakening of humankind, leading do another evolutionary tree for our children, while the adults are left to die, knowing they'll never be able to explore the universe. Forgot the name, but still think about this, too.
Lastly, the Three Body Problem with it's "Dark Forest" theory. I'm not completely convinced by the idea, but it's thought provoking.
Well, a lot of kids lose interest in school subjects for a lot of different reasons! I remained very interested in math, physics, and computers, gained some more interest in biology, etc. But this way of looking at life can be weird and alienating. I think part of the fascination is how life kind of keeps going on nevertheless. Regardless of what you think about the nature of language and meaning, you have to act in society. And you sort of have to cope in your own way with the big thoughts while also coping with the ordinary stuff.
Various insights into evolution, biology, materialism, or what have you can't really negate the reality of what's going on today. Or if they seem to do so then the insight is probably incomplete. I'm reminded of the way people use rational scientific rhetoric to exclaim that religion is irrational and dumb; well, but how about using that rational science to investigate how and why religion is a part of human psyche and society? Etc.
I forget who said this initially, but the world is on fire. If I were to sit unmoved in my apartment the world would eventually push it way under the door and into my life.
I’ve actually been looking for the source for sometime so I could read it.
"I think irrationality plays an important role in thinking about our own existence and it rationalizing everything down to its core isn't necessarily helpful."
It's not irrational to posit that you are more than merely a 'bag of particles'.
Just because scientific materialism, taken to it's extreme, might want to describe us as such, does not mean it is true.
Scientific materialism is only one metaphysical perspective, based on assumptions - such as the universe is ordered and can be described with a set of rules. There is no full evidence of this, it's just an assumption. Given that some of the material universe seems to 'mostly' adhere to a set of equations, and because it's objective ... we like scientific materialism a lot, but we also have to remember it's not the only way to look at things.
Consciousness itself, or rather, life, the perspective of 'the observer' could be the reality that matters. The expression of life itself is the interesting thing that only seems 'miraculous' from the perspective of materialism because it's literally denied by it -> that materialism can't seem to describe life is not so much a realization of science, rather it's an assumption that we started with: the universe is just a pile of particles, ergo, we are a pile of particles. The later does not follow the former as a logical conclusion, rather, the assumption that 'everything is just particles' basically implies the later.
It may very well be more rational to accept that life / consciousness is 'real' - and it seems to transcend our materialist conclusions because materialism as a metaphysical perspective just doesn't fully work, i.e. there's a hole in it.
Consider that we ultimately developed logic / reasoning / scientific materialism mostly to enable our lives and expression i.e. it's just a Tool, not a Truth.
Your perspective doesn't seem exactly common in hackernews and I appreciate it.
1) I gotta say though when you talk of "the observer" it throws me off as it sounds like the typical quantum woo twisting of the observer effect, perhaps you meant something else? what do you mean by "the observer"?
2) Regarding "the universe is ordered and can be described with a set of rules. There is no full evidence of this, it's just an assumption." this has proven so far to be a good assumption (as seen by the massive amount of scientific knowledge and verified predictions accumulated) and if anything it seems all evidence points to exactly this. Is there evidence that there the universe is more than just 'a pile of particles'? (although that is a somewhat simplistic way to put it)
3) Trying to distill the comment, it seems the main argument is along the lines of "science can't explain life itself and/or consciousness, therefore there must be more" is that a fair assessment? and in that case what would you convince you of the oposite? for e.g what if "life" is well understood and can be reproduced in a lab etc.. what if we can reproduce most human-like intelligence with AI, etc... in other words, what would (realistically) change your mind to the opposite?
I'm just making the case that the spiritualist argument is rational.
Humans in every culture since the dawn of time have referred to 'spirit' or that which seems to animate matter.
Yes - 'laws of the universe' we take as a given because they seem to work for us, in paper fairly well.
But you know what we also take as 'a given'? That you are alive.
'Your life' is kind of more important to you than science. Life itself, and the expression of it, seems to be our #1 concern.
That once branch of thought, Scientific Materialism doesn't by definition allow for life to exist, doesn't deny the nature of life.
1) Not 'quantum observer' - your spirit, soul, or some other scientific description. The word doesn't matter.
2) The evidence the universe is more than a pile of particles is life itself. And consciousness.
3) "Science can't explain life" - it's worse: Scientific Materialism rules it out completely by definition. If we decided that 'the universe is mathematical rules' - then - 'there is no life'. Creating life in a test-tube probably won't give us the answer.
FYI Science also has a problem describing why simple objects can ultimately make up very complicated ones with different problems, it's called 'emergence', it's a field of study.
Finally, I'll refer you to the the concept of 'biocentrism' - which is a more material outlook at the subject without getting so overtly metaphysical, and it's done by real scientists. [1]
