A new study indicates that ova exert influence over sperm selection; that is, to some extent, an ovum can choose which sperm fertilizes it. This is a clear example of agency, but does it indicate that the ovum is conscious?
The answer depends, in part, of course on how you define consciousness. The psi group considers everything to be conscious: when a photon hits a carbon molecule and the molecule reacts, that is a sign of consciousness, and I think it is a valid argument. Social scientists are more likely to look beyond agency to something like perception or self-awareness to identify the presence of consciousness in an entity or being, but again, it depends on how you define, and empirically investigate, these terms and characteristics.
Again, I like the psi understanding of consciousness, with mere agency being sufficient to determine its presence, but maybe the social scientists, and natural science behaviorialists, would find this proposal intriguing: if it could be demonstrated that an ovum selected a sperm ironically, would it not indicate the presence of consciousness rather than mere agency? For example, if the ovum secreted a fluid that inhibited sperm A but assisted sperm B, even though sperm B would lead to the development of an entity with greater evolutionary fitness, would that not provide evidence for consciousness?
I suppose it would depend on whether the action was considered an error or dysfunction, and in this case a statistical study would be helpful. Evolutionary biology does not explain all, or even most, behavior. Understanding the role of irony in behavior would be helpful. How one would conduct a study to examine this is a puzzle. Perhaps a greater ecological study of ova that routinely choose the evolutionarily disadvantaging spermatozoa would shed light on the issue.
The answer depends, in part, of course on how you define consciousness. The psi group considers everything to be conscious: when a photon hits a carbon molecule and the molecule reacts, that is a sign of consciousness, and I think it is a valid argument. Social scientists are more likely to look beyond agency to something like perception or self-awareness to identify the presence of consciousness in an entity or being, but again, it depends on how you define, and empirically investigate, these terms and characteristics.
Again, I like the psi understanding of consciousness, with mere agency being sufficient to determine its presence, but maybe the social scientists, and natural science behaviorialists, would find this proposal intriguing: if it could be demonstrated that an ovum selected a sperm ironically, would it not indicate the presence of consciousness rather than mere agency? For example, if the ovum secreted a fluid that inhibited sperm A but assisted sperm B, even though sperm B would lead to the development of an entity with greater evolutionary fitness, would that not provide evidence for consciousness?
I suppose it would depend on whether the action was considered an error or dysfunction, and in this case a statistical study would be helpful. Evolutionary biology does not explain all, or even most, behavior. Understanding the role of irony in behavior would be helpful. How one would conduct a study to examine this is a puzzle. Perhaps a greater ecological study of ova that routinely choose the evolutionarily disadvantaging spermatozoa would shed light on the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment