I say this all to say that from atoms self-assembling into molecules to humans both maximizing model evidence and reducing prediction error between their models and the external world, it's all the same mechanics used to minimize free-energy in a non-equilibrium dynamic to resist entropy. I've come to believe consciousness was not selected via natural selection nor does it affect any neural process within organisms; I believe consciousness is an intrinsic epiphenomena of non-equilibrium systems, from ordered hydrogen to highly-ordered hydrogen. All emotion we feel is the conscious awareness of prediction error arising hierarchically within our neural computational circuitry. Our acting and thinking is response to this error, and our experience of acting and thinking is epiphenomenal, an unnecessary consequence of an information-theoretic dynamic exchanges between a model and the environment it attempts to understand. I find this answer provides a better explanation than citing supernatural intervention or an incomprehensible complexity.

I say this all to say that from atoms self-assembling into molecules to humans both maximizing model evidence and reducing prediction error between their models and the external world, it's all the same mechanics used to minimize free-energy in a non-equilibrium dynamic to resist entropy. I've come to believe consciousness was not selected via natural selection nor does it affect any neural process within organisms; I believe consciousness is an intrinsic epiphenomena of non-equilibrium systems, from ordered hydrogen to highly-ordered hydrogen. All emotion we feel is the conscious awareness of prediction error arising hierarchically within our neural computational circuitry. Our acting and thinking is response to this error, and our experience of acting and thinking is epiphenomenal, an unnecessary consequence of an information-theoretic dynamic exchange between a model and the environment it attempts to understand. I find this answer provides a better explanation than citing supernatural intervention or an incomprehensible complexity.

I think the answer lies in the free-energy principle, an emerging mathematical principle in biophysics and cognitive science that describes a formal account of the representational capacities of physical systems, a sort of universal mechanics behind everything from cells to cities (from ordered hydrogen to highly-ordered hydrogen). Understanding the principle in its entirety takes an inordinate amount of time and discipline; however, I will attempt to explain it as simply as I can below:

Let's take a step back, and let's use different language. By resisting entropy, the system remains alive. If the system reaches thermodynamic equilibrium, it dies. By resisting entropy, the system can be said to intrinsically contain true beliefs about its environment, built into its structure and encoded inner functionality. If the system reaches thermodynamic equilibrium, the system's "beliefs" are then false. The collection of these "beliefs" is called the system's model; it's the array of the system's inner states representing hidden external environmental states.

Sensory-Expectation Engined Organisms Examples

I hope I've kept you up until this point, because this is where it becomes exciting. Let's consider the following organisms: a bacteria, a rabbit, and a human. A bacteria responds to basic external input; however, most behavior is stagnant. For substantial belief changes, the bacteria has to die for the model to update within the population via random mutation. A rabbit responds to more complex external input; however, most behavior is bound to a long reflex arc, genetically predisposed. For substantial belief changes, the rabbit can either die or act within its generality for the model to update. A human responds to drastically more complex input; most behavior is bound to a very short reflex arc, genetically predisposed. Our generality can be said to be greater than rabbits, the spectrum of possible behavior (action and perception) to be in service of modeling the environment.

I say this all to say that from atoms self-assembling into molecules to humans both maximizing model evidence and reducing prediction error between their models and the external world, it's all the same mechanics used to minimize free-energy in a non-equilibrium dynamic to resist entropy. I've come to believe consciousness was not selected via natural selection nor does it affect any process within organisms; I believe consciousness is an intrinsic epiphenomena of non-equilibrium systems, from ordered hydrogen to highly-ordered hydrogen. All in all, I find this answer provides a better explanation than citing supernatural intervention or an incomprehensible complexity.

I think the answer lies in the free-energy principle, an emerging mathematical principle in biophysics and cognitive science that describes a formal account of the representational capacities of physical systems, a sort of universal mechanics behind everything from cells to cities (from ordered hydrogen to highly-ordered hydrogen). Understanding the principle in its entirety takes an inordinate amount of time and discipline; however, I will attempt to explain it as simply as I can below. It will be initially difficult to follow, but ties well into consciousness towards the end.

Let's take a step back, and let's use different language. By resisting entropy, the system remains alive. If the system reaches thermodynamic equilibrium, it dies. By resisting entropy, the system can be said to intrinsically contain true beliefs about its environment, built into its structure and encoded inner functionality. If the system reaches thermodynamic equilibrium, the system's "beliefs" are then false. The collection of these "beliefs" is called the system's model; it's the array of the system's inner states representing hidden external environmental states. The system will always act to maintain true "beliefs," to model its environment in order to stay 'alive.'

Different Sensory-Expectation Engines within Organisms

I hope I've kept you up until this point, because this is where it becomes exciting. Let's consider the following organisms: a bacteria, a rabbit, and a human. A bacteria responds to basic external input; however, most behavior is stagnant. For substantial belief changes, the bacteria has to die for the model to update within the population via random mutation. A rabbit responds to more complex external input; however, most behavior is bound to a long reflex arc, genetically predisposed. For substantial belief changes, the rabbit can either die or act within its generality for the model to update. A human responds to drastically more complex input; some behavior is bound to a very short reflex arc, genetically predisposed. Our generality can be said to be greater than rabbits, the spectrum of possible behavior. All action and perception is in the service of minimizing prediction error and maximizing model evidence of the world around us, all behavior is driven by an intrinsic reward to minimize free-energy. We act upon the environment to change incoming sensations to match the model. We update the model to match the incoming sensations from our environments.

I say this all to say that from atoms self-assembling into molecules to humans both maximizing model evidence and reducing prediction error between their models and the external world, it's all the same mechanics used to minimize free-energy in a non-equilibrium dynamic to resist entropy. I've come to believe consciousness was not selected via natural selection nor does it affect any neural process within organisms; I believe consciousness is an intrinsic epiphenomena of non-equilibrium systems, from ordered hydrogen to highly-ordered hydrogen. All emotion we feel is the conscious awareness of prediction error arising hierarchically within our neural computational circuitry. Our acting and thinking is response to this error, and our experience of acting and thinking is epiphenomenal, an unnecessary consequence of an information-theoretic dynamic exchanges between a model and the environment it attempts to understand. I find this answer provides a better explanation than citing supernatural intervention or an incomprehensible complexity.