From his review of Scott Ventureyra’s On the Origin of Consciousness:
… Ventureyra poses the phenomena as a FINDON — a “first instantiation of a new law of nature.” That is, current cosmology indicates that there was a time in which consciousness did not exist. Now, however, consciousness is a given as a law of psychology. Therefore, at some point in the past, one or more new laws of nature arose involving consciousness.
This is not the only point in the history of the universe for a new law or laws to arise either. When the first life originated, the laws of biology began.
Jonathan Bartlett, “The Why, Not the How, of the Origin of Consciousness” at Mind Matters News
If consciousness is a first instantiation of a new law of nature, there should be laws associated with its workings. They should relate to the laws of information theory.
See also: Prominent psychologist offers non-reductive approach to consciousness in journal article. A new edition of Communications of the Blyth Institute highlights mind, consciousness, and machine learning
Here’s the cafe of alternatives: Alternatively, Panpsychism: You are conscious but so is your coffee mug
How can consciousness be a material thing? (as some claim)
or
Consciousness is an illusion that sees through itself
Follow UD News at Twitter!
There are no “laws of nature”, only human constructs and models that attempt to quantify or “explain” events and occurrences of similar sorts. Some of our past “laws” have been shown to be incorrect or incomplete, even in physics. So to think that any “laws” in biology are anything more than human constructs and convenient ways to collect, group and describe effects is pretentious. Nature does not have to obey human laws, even when such laws seem to provide good predictions.
@Fasteddious are you describing a human law of “no laws” or a natural law?