Philadelphia, PA
Dear Takac & readers,
Whatever we take consciousness to be, if it makes for an evolutionary advantage, then it must make a causal difference in the world. What creatively spirited person could disagree? Don't human thoughts and theories make a genuine difference?
Its when consciousness is conceived as a fully passive entity of pure internal observance, something like an inner light shining on, but distinct from the stage full of contents or ideas and internal images, that the notion becomes more doubtful. For then, it seems, everything else could be just he same without the observance.
You seem to regard the "spiritual" as incapable of making any causal difference in the world. Perhaps because it belongs to the language of the humanities not the sciences?
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Relative to my understanding, life is a product of the physical laws of nature, including consciousness; otherwise, it’s spiritual.
Cognitive accumulation contributes to the development of
consciousness and the positive genetic factor has a significant role in promoting cognitive accumulation
At first, I was wondering, is the question about conscience or consciousness? I believe they are both beneficial, from an evolutionary standpoint.
If an organism is unconscious, I don't see how it can avoid danger. And if an organism has no conscience, it would be unable to live in a society, so it would be more vulnerable to any sort of threat.
So, it seems to me that both consciousness and a conscience are required, for the organism to take an active role in improving its chances at survival. Without these, survival is mostly or entirely a matter of luck.
An earthworm, with its primitive sensory awareness/consciousness, is able to improve its chances of survival because it can react to a dangerous environment. E.g. it senses and reacts to light by burrowing away from the surface, thereby reducing its vulnerability. Humans with their perceptual consciousness, self-consciousness, and voluntary control mechanisms are at the opposite end of the spectrum, and, as Albert Manfredi suggests, since humans are social organisms, their potential for survival as a species is further enhanced with the addition of conscience, for which consciousness is a precondition.
Firstly, consciousness generally being so loosely defined, I would at least break this into a human vs "all animals" consciousness question. If we can agree that all animals have some degree of it, then of course any form of current awareness, recall of past experiences, simple cognition and problem solving capability (e.g. seeking and finding food) has an obvious evolutionary advantage.
Humans take consciousness to a new level, developing a cultural layers (e.g. with complex language and awareness of society at large and its history) that transform our civilizations and "fitness" without regard to classical animal-genetic selection/evolution. Human consciousness itself evolves, from cave-day simplicity of band and tribal imperatives and its social (e.g. hunting pack animal) standards, to current day, potential deeply intellectual discussions, e.g. invention of myths and religions, speculations on one's "purpose" in life, choices on which social and civil roles to play, and even more random or individualized behavior with respect to sexual selection in our species.
I've only skimmed the surface. What I think is most important is for us to know how to differentiate between the classical form of natural selection-driven genetic evolution in the context of all life forms, vs the new, novel kind of human cultural evolution that is now so powerful that it can easily usurp genetic evolution, and all because of our ability to share personal, complex "awareness" and skills with each other, invent our own stories and design new tools and processes, write books about them... I can't even keep this simple any more! Human consciousness now takes us way above and beyond how nature herself invented us.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear MacGregor & readers,
The present question is much debated in the contemporary philosophical literature. After all, if consciousness conferred no evolutionary benefit or advantage, how could we understand the biological evolution of consciousness? Why would it survive in biological beings? But, in spite of that kind of argument, there is a contrary tendency to regard consciousness as something rather mysterious which living creatures, conceived as automatons, could fully do without.
There is even debate as to whether consciousness has any function at all; and the working premises of either side of that debate depend on varieties of conceptions of consciousness. The answers given above in this thread, all of interest I think, presuppose what I might call a "content-laden" concept. Consciousness always involves some specific content; and to be conscious is to be conscious in some particular way or other. There is no such thing as consciousness in abstraction from all particularities of how one is conscious. If consciousness has a biological function, then it must be causally related to the direction of behavior in varying environmental situations. It is this connection which places emphasis on understanding consciousness as wedded to the various contents (or sometimes, the "felt qualities") of consciousness and their further relation to the direction or governance of outward behavior.
There is no settling the philosophical debate independent of our conception of what consciousness is and does. If it doesn't do anything, it becomes rather ghostly --and dispensable?
H.G. Callaway
'Consciousness' is 'Inherent' with all living organisms reinforced by 'Nature' & responsible for protection from each other
'Truth' is always acknowledged by 'Society' nothing but 'Consciousness'
'Consciousness' of 'Society' is absolutely more 'Transparent' than AI & Assumption free under ideology
Consciousness is a manifestation of evolution so nature can see and experience itself. As for the “benefit of consciousness from an evolutionary standpoint,” became a phase in life to persist in time, having freedom to evolve, such that it provides greater access to its objectives.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Takac & readers,
From an evolutionary point of view, traits of living beings do not arise for any specific purposes, instead they persist, because they serve some function of organisms which enhance the prospects of life and reproduction.
In consequence, it would be a mistake, from the standpoint of evolutionary theory, to suggest that consciousness arose in evolution "so nature can see and experience itself." Nature is not assumed to have any aims or purposes in biological evolution.
If you want to show that nature has aims or purposes, evolutionary theory won't help. Still, no doubt, we human beings do have aims and purposes; and our aims and purposes, in fact, make use of many supports in nature.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Consciousness is a manifestation of evolution so nature can see and experience itself.
Dear Callaway,
Thank you for sharing your philosophy.
Relative to my understanding, life is a product of the physical laws of nature, including consciousness; otherwise, it’s spiritual.
Regards,
Mike
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Takac & readers,
Whatever we take consciousness to be, if it makes for an evolutionary advantage, then it must make a causal difference in the world. What creatively spirited person could disagree? Don't human thoughts and theories make a genuine difference?
Its when consciousness is conceived as a fully passive entity of pure internal observance, something like an inner light shining on, but distinct from the stage full of contents or ideas and internal images, that the notion becomes more doubtful. For then, it seems, everything else could be just he same without the observance.
You seem to regard the "spiritual" as incapable of making any causal difference in the world. Perhaps because it belongs to the language of the humanities not the sciences?
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Relative to my understanding, life is a product of the physical laws of nature, including consciousness; otherwise, it’s spiritual.
Dear Callaway & readers,
The scope of philosophy over “consciousness” can be overwhelming.
From the perspective of physics I feel the constructal law is perhaps, the best answer to the question, “What is the benefit of consciousness from an evolutionary standpoint?”
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2016.1172159
The constructal law states, “For a flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”
An example of human consciousness flowing within the matrix of the laws of nature, having freedom in the evolution of understanding, provides greater access to the pedagogic currents of nature, results in changing configurations of philosophy, culture, markets, technology and scientific understanding, etc.; generating dendritic patterns guided by the constructal law all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain).
In the evolution of understanding, is to consciously perceive patterns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-NDwqyTOaM
Regards,
Mike
I like to emphasize that brains evolved merely to support the body and its species at large, particularly in how it supports reproductive competence. Consciousness may in its own way enhance or corrupt reproductive competence, but consciousness is at this point not just a by-product of natural evolution, but increasingly a by-product of modern environments... particularly in the case of human evolution. (Pets, like dogs, can illustrate a bit of secondary examples.)
We modern humans usurp natural evolution daily, with our science and idealisms, which are purely human constructs, for better and for worse. Many of our constructs have no bases in reality, much less bases in natural evolution.
I would even go so far as to say that constructs in consciousness, e.g. philosophy itself, routinely affect consciousness itself. To some extent, the nature of human consciousness is a moving target.
Animal consciousness in general is fixed and easily measurable, compared to an evolving, self-aware and self-evolving moving target of human consciousness. Culture (e.g. language, music, religion, scientific discipline) helps shape our conscious experiences, which in turn can modify and amplify culture, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.
Many of these self-invented, self-produced conscious experiences--even the so-called mind-expanding ones--should be recognized as "artificial" and sometimes short-lived, often like viral videos.
And consider taking this metamorphosis a step further as we invent Artificial Intelligence: Whether or not AI will be deemed (by us, somewhat arbitrarily) to be endowed with its own "consciousness", it will at least start out as merely another product of a human, self-serving consciousness, for better and for worse.
THAT really complicates answers to the original poster's question, eh?! Human consciousness started out with biological causes, but is increasingly a self-modifiable product that can (and often does) ignore those animal origins and early evolution. Again, for better and for worse.
So, in fact, Human Consciousness should really be considered to be its own "animal", originating from but separate from biologically evolved Animal Consciousness.
Benefit of consciousness? Not much, evidently. Humankind has wrecked the Earth and is busy destroying itself. The End of the Anthropocene is nigh!
Conscious feelings of lust are a strong motivator in getting people to reproduce, and conscious feelings of desire-satisfaction (e.g. orgasm) are a strong reinforcer of reproductive behavior. Moreover, such feelings are compatible with and can override all manner of other perceptions, sensations, and conscious or unconscious bodily urges. Consciousness is evolution's way of bribing us into more frequent reproductive behavior and thereby increasing our likelihood of reproductive success.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Pfeifer & readers,
I think the question implicit in your remarks is whether desire and its motivational effects are something distinct from consciousness of desire. Consider the humdrum case of hunger. Hunger, motivates eating and searching out food. But there seems to be a prevalent view that hunger and related activities could exist (say in some sort of automaton), without consciousness of hunger, that is, without the "felt quality." This makes of consciousness something of an "epiphenomenon," which is caused by physiological processes, but has no effect on them. I think this is the idea that makes of consciousness a sort of mystery. If consciousness has no effects in the world, then how could evolution favor it?
My contrarian inclination is to resist this kind of view. But, how to go about it in theoretical terms? For consciousness to have physiological efficacy, it seems, we must avoid any excessively abstract view of it. This brings up the relationship of consciousness (or the psychological more generally) to the biological --more directly. If consciousness is to play any role in evolutionary explanations, then it seems it must have some tighter relationships to the biological entities which are the subject-matter of evolutionary theory. Recall that in Aristotle, e.g., the mind, and the soul more generally (=psyche) is the "form" of the body.
The deeper questions on this thread remain in place.
H.G. Callaway
“…Conscious feelings of lust are a strong motivator in getting people to reproduce …etc..”
To say something about the consciousness it is necessary before to understand – what is she? It turns out to be that for the understanding it is necessary to understand also – what are “Matter” and “Life” in tribal Universe; and what is “Universe”, though.
These questions can be rationally answered only in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, where it is rigorously proven, ioncluding, that Matter and consciousness are some fundamentally different informational systems; so, including, any consciousness fundamentally cannot appear as some evolution of any material object.
As well as appearance of Life on Earth as some evolution of some chemical compounds, as that well known, has extremely small probability; or, rather probably, is simply impossble.
From above seems as quite naturally the inference follows, that appearance of Life and the development of the living beings, which resulted in appearance of next and next species having more and more developed consciousnesses, aren’t something accidental, all that was, and seems as quite naturally to conjecture, is now, the deliberate process that is governed by something “conscious”, rather probably by the consciousness herself.
Correspondingly, from the observed Life trend “more and more out Matter”, this thread question seems as meaningless, since in the question the term “evolutionary standpoint” isn’t used properly; and if it would be used properly, then (i) – instead “evolutionary” should be “developmentary”, and, further, so (ii) the observed consciousness development up to the highest now state “homo sapiens sapiens” has quite natural “benefit”, since is successful realization of the main aim/sense of Life.
More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720, and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1116209.
It could be useful to read, for example, a couple of last SS posts in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Consciousness_appeared#view=5cb6dde9d7141b3643048e21
Cheers
This is an interesting question that can find some answers if we focus on the evolutionary benefits of self- consciousness. Self-consciousness can be understood as the possibility to represent oneself as an entity existing in the environment and capable of actions. Such perspective allows to propose an evolutionary scenario that began about 6 millions years ago ( at the pan-homo split). At that time our ancestors were capable of some identification with their conspecifics (like are today chimps). The scenario in a few words: - The development of identifications with conspecifics may have brought our pre-human ancestors to represent themselves as entities existing in the environment, like conspecifics they identified with were represented. Such process has produced in the minds of our ancestors an elementary version of self-consciousness (an "ancestral self-consciousness"). - At the same time, identifications with suffering or endangered conspecifics have produced an important anxiety increase, unbearable if not limited. - Tools developed by our ancestors to limit that anxiety (caring, empathy, imitation, collaboration, ToM, ...) have procured important evolutionary benefits while also interwoving the evolutionary build up of self-consciousness with anxiety management. - A positive feedback on indentification has accelerated the overall evolutionary process and enriched the evolutionary benefits . - As a result our human minds are unconsciously interwoven with anxiety management processes which are critical to our psychological well-being. You will find a poster describing that scenario at http://crmenant.free.fr/Neurex.Strasbourg.2018.Poster-C.Menant.pdf. More is to come on that subject (phenomenal consciousness to be taken into account). For those who have some time there is a more detailed presentation of the scenario at https://philpapers.org/rec/MENPFA-3
Comments are welcome.
H.G. Callaway wrote "If consciousness has no effects in the world, then how could evolution favor it?". Yes, and I think it's very important for us to differentiate between evolution via natural selection vs modern day evolution of culture. Culture encompasses many conscious experiences that couldn't even have existed or been thought about millions of years ago. And on the flip side, it's extremely difficult to imagine, much less postulate, what consciousness must have been like for our ancestors millions of years ago.
I.e., only by discussing the possible nature of our consciousness as it might have existed *before* we invented, adopted, and embellished complex cultural memes and behaviors can we hope to guess how the most *primitive* version of human consciousness may have affected the path of our natural evolution. Even the simplest, culturally learned behaviors such as tool making and building fires had major effects on day to day survival, effects above and beyond our genetically programmed day to day behaviors before such culture was invented.
Perhaps it's somewhat possible to work around this difficulty of discovering what our "primitive consciousness" must have been like, by postulating and further discovering what childhood consciousness must be like, before children take on--if I may say "preternaturally"--the complex thinking abilities that culture at large nurtures in each child. Or at least, in my opinion, it should be enlightening to discuss how consciousness "evolves" during early years of each child's growth and development.
An even more basic question that requires more consistency in how we define and ultimately understand consciousness might be "when does consciousness begin", even considering as far back and primitive as fetal development in the womb. Consciousness itself cannot be just a single, all or nothing attribute, but a gradually developed, complex mechanism, continually updated and modified by daily exposure to internally varying brain plasticity, and exteriorly applied social pressures and human culture at large. Language would be just one example of a component to modern day consciousness that typically evolves within each person and between each person, from day to day.
“…An even more basic question that requires more consistency in how we define and ultimately understand consciousness might be "when does consciousness begin", even considering as far back and primitive as fetal development in the womb. Consciousness itself cannot be just a single, all or nothing attribute, but a gradually developed, complex mechanism, continually updated and modified by daily exposure to internally varying brain plasticity, and exteriorly applied social pressures and human culture at large.…..”
Yes, indeed “Consciousness itself cannot be just a single, all or nothing attribute, but a gradually developed, complex mechanism” [not a “mechanism”, of course, though; the notion “mechanism” is applicable only to some material objects, when any consciousness is non-material object fundamentally],
however that she is “continually updated and modified by daily exposure to internally varying brain plasticity, and exteriorly applied social pressures and human culture at large” isn’t essential.
Again in this thread – every consciousness, including which is “exteriorly applied social pressures and human culture at large”, i.e. human’s one, is concrete well logically organized informational system “computer+program”, which, in spite of Matter is well logically organized informational system “computer+program” also, fundamentally differs from Matter by that the sets of fundamental laws/links/constants that are bases of and determinate Matter’s and consciousness’s organization/existence/changing are different.
The consciousnesses of concrete spaces on Earth so are practically the same systems, including humans’ consciousnesses: they practically operate by the same algorithms; staring from the analysis of information that is obtained from practically material sensors. Practically all humans see, [or, more correctly their consciousnesses assign the symbol “red”….] items that radiate photons with concrete frequency as “red”, “green”, etc.; all consciousnesses assign the symbol “pain” in the same situation at external and internal impacts on humans’ bodies; etc. And all consciousnesses seek for the cause-effects links at analysis of obtained information and analyze the information by using the same logical rules, etc. – independently on “language”, “culture”, “social pressures” etc.
Including the informational system “consciousness” operates after corresponding living being’s death in the “Information” Set, where are no “language”, “culture”, “social pressures” etc. Or, more correctly, where are some other than on Earth “languages”, “cultures”, “social pressures” etc…
More see SS post above and the papers linked in the posts; to read SS posts in threads
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Consciousness_appeared#view=5cb6dde9d7141b3643048e21 , and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Biodiversity-why_is_biodiversity_so_important#view=5cbd6ff54921ee8280621ca2
would be useful also.
Cheers
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Cadby & readers,
Perhaps there is a version of your "origins" questions reflected in the experience of learning a foreign language. Surely, comprehension in the new language develops gradually, and in the meantime, there is much that is missed or imperfectly understood. One might say its a somewhat "flickering" awareness at first. This is a matter that is at least partly evident in testing for comprehension; and testing is something that language teachers frequently do, for there own specific purposes in instruction.
Also of similar interest, I suspect, is the ways in which people infer the meaning of an unfamiliar word from its usage and the context of usage. We might think of this as a process of becoming aware of the meaning of a word; and the process of becoming aware seems to be reflected in the formulation of dictionary entries on the basis of empirical studies of usage--the work of the lexicographer.
I think the general point is that we might do well in this fashion without need of wondering about the absolute origins of consciousness. Since, as you have it, consciousness continually grows, its new forms must be available just about any time and place. Surely, if someone learns a new word, or infers its meaning from usage, then that person becomes able to do something that he or she could not do before: at the least, begin to use the word correctly. Isn't this also a difference in the world? Doesn't it imply other practical abilities? A key to this approach is that it makes little sense to consider linguistic meaning apart from empirical evidence of usage, which in turn, has all manner of relations to practices. We speak in certain ways, partly because it facilitates our participation in related practices and doings. The efficacy of consciousness seems to be evident in the relationship between understanding language and success in related practices.
Maybe the question of the absolute origin of consciousness is somewhat like the question of the absolute origin of life? Evolutionary theory gets along in understanding living things even in ignorance of absolute origins.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
An even more basic question that requires more consistency in how we define and ultimately understand consciousness might be "when does consciousness begin", even considering as far back and primitive as fetal development in the womb. Consciousness itself cannot be just a single, all or nothing attribute, but a gradually developed, complex mechanism, continually updated and modified by daily exposure to internally varying brain plasticity, and exteriorly applied social pressures and human culture at large. Language would be just one example of a component to modern day consciousness that typically evolves within each person and between each person, from day to day.
Man's awareness of and response to his surroundings is constantly evolving. Those who carry their lives with pride and integrity are the ones who can best manage change. As Eckhart Tolle states, " The past perpetuates itself through lack of presence. The quality of your consciousness at this moment is what shapes the future.” As such, consciousness is in a constant state of flux so that what we know today is a lot more than that of our ancestors.
Consciousness seems to be ability to self refer and monitor sensory and cognitive processes. To be comscious an entity needs a language to represent what it montors (as reproducible patterns). For adaptive behaviour some processes should be given priority over others. Having a monitoring system that can priortise and schedule processes would promote adaptive behaviour. Adaptive behaviour has evolutionary advantage because the life of the entity is likely to be longer than otherwise and the entity is likeky to have more children.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Powell & readers,
Aren't you running together consciousness and self-consciousness? --say, the eye with the "inner eye"? To be efficacious, consciousness must have some power to modify habits of action, but modification of habits of action might go on at some more basic level, it would seem. I have no doubt, e.g., that animals, say the house cat, are conscious, but I doubt that they reflect much on what they do. Still they do (sometimes) change their habits of action under pressure of some sort of environmental feedback. I think they respond to language of any kind very little--not enough to significantly influence their behavior. Or do you propose some special notion of language?
With the domestic cat, I suppose, their inherited patterns of behavior are quite sufficient for their reproduction--given their usual environment. Right?
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Consciousness seems to be ability to self refer and monitor sensory and cognitive processes. To be comscious an entity needs a language to represent what it monitors (as reproducible patterns). For adaptive behaviour some processes should be given priority over others. Having a monitoring system that can priortise and schedule processes would promote adaptive behaviour. Adaptive behaviour has evolutionary advantage because the life of the entity is likely to be longer than otherwise and the entity is likely to have more children.
consciousness defines the existence of objects and thought defines the knowing of this existence
Aleksandr Maryukhin RE: "consciousness defines the existence of objects and thought defines the knowing of this existence"
Please explain what that means. My first thought is that objects existed long before consciousness, although concepts or conceptions of object require consciousness. According to you, what is defining?
Consciousness enables high intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. This allows victory in old niches and the conquest of new niches. It also promotes individual and group longevity resulting in more reproduction.
@richard Gorillas have high intelligence and solve problems, as living things go. Tadpoles live in the simpler niches where volume will suffice. You know that intelligence affords advantages or there wouldn't be any.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology