As a definition of 'consciousness' or of 'conscious' brain t is not clearly specified by the author of the question it is nearly impossible to give an answer.

The author nevertheless specifies "the 'conscious' brain might not only perceive changes in the external environment, but also perceive changes in functioning of automatized processes through body feelings".

It is true that a given organism which "perceives changes in the external environment" is a usual and expected feature of most of organisms. Thus, this cannot be is a specific characteristic of an organism which would show the so-called 'consciousness'.

Now, regarding his sentence "but also perceive changes in functioning of automatized processes through body feelings" I wonder what exactly the author means?

I would be happy first to have some responses from the author about these two points before going further.

Hi Marc,

let's say: 'conscious' equals 'aware' using senses as tools to perceive.

Living beings might be described as automatized pilots of vehicles. They function without knowing or been aware of the technical details of all individual biological processes involved.

Hi Marcel,

Thank you your responses.

However I am not satisfied by these:

1. Definition of consciousness:

Nearly all animals other than humans are 'aware' as you define it: "using senses as tools to perceive";

2. "They function without knowing or being aware of the technical details of all individual biological processes involved":

What do you mean by "the technical details of all individual biological processes involved"? If I read you literally nobody is "knowing or being aware of the technical details of all individual biological processes involved",

Hi Marc,

indeed, with the reasoning I do not make a distinction between humans and other living beings.

Living beings are only aware of a tiny fraction of their own body processes which makes life supportable, I think. E.g. we don't (really) know what is happening in each of our own billions of cells, each cell to be compared with a tiny machine producing thousands and thousands of chemical processes ...

Marcel,

Your first response disturbs me a little bit: you say "with the reasoning I do not make a distinction between humans and other living beings". Do you confirm that all 'living' beings are 'aware' according to your definition, i.e., using senses as tools to perceive?

In addition, your question "Can a genetic basis of life-history traits be identified more easily in 'unconscious' than in 'conscious' biological processes?" is not clear to me: can you clarify it?

What would be "unconscious" biological processes?

Can you clarify what you mean by "a genetic basis of life-history traits"?

All living beings have senses to respond to the environment. The question then becomes more complicated. Are they aware of the responses or not? In many cases not, I think. For instance, within our own body, physiology will respond to changes in water balance or other internal environmental/chemical/hormone/pheromone... factors without living beings been aware/conscious of that. These are what I would call automatized responses.

Typical life-history traits are aspects related to survival or reproduction (e.g. timing or effort of reproduction) but some claim that any phenotypic/individual traits including morphology reflect life-history traits. Genetics is what is transmitted from parents to offspring like genes influencing life-history expression. Some say that in many cases culture or non-genetic traits are also transmitted from parents to offspring. If we refer to genetics, it includes genes and its consequences.

And of course, as you know whole libraries are devoted to these aspects.

Demonstrating that something is genetic is not easy because of epigenetic effects, where environmental factors influencing parental expression are also transmitted to offspring (cf. Lamarck) ....

Marcel,

I am somewhat confused by your speech.

Initially you specified a definition of awareness (actually not usual) which was so large that it included all 'living' systems (what I call the organisms which are the products of Darwinian evolution).

You seem to come back to a more restrictive definition as now you make a distinction between organisms which are aware of their actions and the ones which aren't.

I am not opposite to this last approach of 'awareness'. However I would be grateful if you could hold your position: either your first definition or the second one.

Anyway can you re-formulate your question regarding automatized processes and genetics?

People ask questions to stimulate interactions.

'Consciousness' or 'awareness' act through perceived senses allowing individual living beings to spot/perceive changes in the internal or external environment, often unpredictable or unexpected, like the appearance of an unknown species. For instance, when I am confronted with another living being that suddenly appears, what should I do? escape, hide, discuss...... Senses not involving consciousness or awareness, like those of cells and their receptors belonging to the individual living being may evolve in more predictable environments. Thus, 'consciousness' or 'awareness' require senses helping to perceive the internal/external world, but senses do not require 'consciousness' or 'awareness'

Based on former reasoning I would be inclined to say there is a link between the need for awareness and the level of habitat predictability.

Case A: In very predictable/fixed environments, living beings can be genetically determined automatized pilots not (necessarily) requiring awareness or consciousness (Are plants aware?).

Case B: In non-predictable/un-fixed environments, the need for awareness is higher to rapidly spot change and respond to it (e.g. attract, move away, etc...). In these conditions, we might be inclined to predict selection against genetically determine fixed automatized programs not taking environmental dynamics into account.