Can Darwinism explain consciousness?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 12:45 PM by Astyanax

reply to post by Solasis

I've always had this intuition, which I don't even necessarily believe, that consciousness is really an illusion; that we are not conscious, we only seem to be conscious because it is evolutionarily beneficial for us for some reason.

Most likely, complex sensory information that cannot be processed by the autonomous (unconscious) subprograms of the computer between your ears (and mine) gets pushed upstairs to a more versatile and labile processing faculty which utilizes what we call attention (i.e. consciousness) in its operations. Or, to put it more simply, the computer kicks in the conscious-thought routine whenever instinctive responses are deemed insufficient. But why does it work that way? Who knows?

And yes, it is an evolved property. Has to be, since every characteristic manifestation of life is an evolved property. Which is not the same thing as saying that evolution explains consciousness; more like it produced consciousness.

reply to post by Maddogkull

If you haven’t heard of Stuart Hameroff...

Ugh.

Still, he was clever enough to take in Roger Penrose, so he must have been doing something right.

Microtubule operations are about a thousand times too big and slow to allow for quantum effects to be manifested in them, I hear. I also hear that Stuart Hameroff is big and slow, but that may be an unkind slander.

reply to post by ucalien

Darwin couldn't explain nor even the jumps in the primate's evolution 'til reach the condition of homo-erectus and homo-sapiens

Not surprising, since he died in 1882 and the first Homo erectus fossils weren't even discovered until 1891 (and were at the time called Pithecanthropus erectus, anyway).

According to professor Chang from Genome Project the human DNA has 97% of non-coding sequences, the so called "junk DNA", corresponding to an alien "open source" genetic program.

Oh, how wonderful. May we have some proof of this poppycock--published, peer-reviewed studies only, please. We're not all space cadets here you know.

Darwinism is a bunk

Indefinite article unnecessary. Grotesque fail anyway.

reply to post by Maslo

The best way to create these neural networks is by evolutionary algorithms, not intelligent designing. That is another hint pointing to the origin and function of mind itself.

Snap! But I'm afraid you've lost poor old ucalien completely now...

reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 12:54 PM by MrXYZ

Pretty hard to define consciousness. If you're talking about being self-aware, scientists have proven dolphins are self-aware too...and the same has been proven for certain monkeys.

Darwin didn't include a study of consciousness in his theory, so no, he doesn't explain it. In fact, I think even modern science can't fully explain it. However, that does NOT automatically validate creationism!! Just because we can't explain something with our current knowledge, doesn't prove the existence of a creator God.

Not knowing how fire works in the middle ages also didn't prove the existence of God.

reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 01:03 PM by Maddogkull

reply to post by Astyanax

Seriously, just email him that, he will just laugh at you and give you a logical reason why they can work. Seriously I was really sceptical. I went on every sceptic website and asked tons of questions and tried to debunk his theory. You should give the guy more credit. You will get more answers from email, then from his website.

reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 01:06 PM by Astyanax

reply to post by Maddogkull

Cool. I'll see what I get from him.

Nice Gandhi quote, btw.

reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 06:15 PM by SlapBassist531

Probably not. You can check it out from page 216-218 in his book where he talks about a certain type of ant where basically theres two workers, one that works inside the hive that is real small blabla, and theres the other which is much more physically superior yet is sterile and he goes on explaining that he does not know how evolution can prove itself to this but rather he chooses to believe his own theory rather than the possibility of there being a divine creator.

reply posted on 18-3-2010 @ 06:28 PM by rhinoceros

Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain in the same way hurricanes are emergent structures on our planet. You need the right setting and it just *simsalabim* happens.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by rhinoceros]

reply posted on 18-3-2010 @ 11:24 PM by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by SlapBassist531
Probably not. You can check it out from page 216-218 in his book where he talks about a certain type of ant where basically theres two workers, one that works inside the hive that is real small blabla, and theres the other which is much more physically superior yet is sterile and he goes on explaining that he does not know how evolution can prove itself to this but rather he chooses to believe his own theory rather than the possibility of there being a divine creator.

When Darwin penned this, he had the benefit of ignorance. Nobody knew about genetics. Nobody had studied the implications of evolution and natural selection (obviously). It was a completely new field, and for a guy who didn't know all this stuff, he still damn near hit the mark every time.

The ants in a hive are all genetically identical. The queen, the workers, the soldiers, the drones, all of them. What makes them different has more to do with hormones and growing conditions, rather than genetics.

However their genes are programmed to respond in this way to the various hormones and stimuli. Why?

Because queen ants who's offspring form these different casts have more reproductive success and live longer, than queens who only create "mini-mes" - this can be seen in places like Australia, where invasive "modern" ants end up outcompeting the native "primitive" ants which live more like wasp colonies than ant hives.

Essentially the worker who harvests food, the worker who takes care of the eggs, the soldier who defends the nest, and the drone that mates with the queens of other colonies are all contributing to the success of their own genes - which are identical to one another. it's a phenominon known as selective altruism, and has squat to do with an ancient Jewish space-monkey.

reply posted on 22-3-2010 @ 05:20 PM by Lilitu

Of course evolution explains consciousness. Read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. It provides a near complete theory of the origin of consciousness.

Other books worth reading are

Con sciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett (Read anything by Dennett you can get your hands on), The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore and The Emerging Mind: The BBC Reith Lectures 2003 by V. S. Ramachandra.

reply posted on 23-3-2010 @ 03:24 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by Lilitu

Thanks for the links. Jaynes's book sounds fascinating and I shall certainly put it on my to-read list, but I am sceptical about his thesis that consciousness evolved in historical time. As one of the reader reviews on Amazon points out, the thesis is unfalsifiable--we can never adopt it except on faith. Personally, I don't do faith.

Dennett (probably the contemporary philosopher with whose work I am most familiar) does explain how consciousness might have evolved. I'm not sure about Blackmore and Ramachandran, neither of whose books I have read. Still, I find the materialist explanation of mind persuasive.

I don't believe, however, that a Darwinistic explanation for qualia can be put forward at present. It is not established that qualia are equivalent to the mechanisms that generate them, and only the latter are susceptible to an evolutionary explanation. Qualia may be essential components of the brain's higher processing functions. They may equally well be artifacts or even illusory by-products of those functions, as Dennett proposes. If any case, the explanation for them (or their final dismissal as matters needing explanation) will come from neuroscience, not directly from evolutionary theory.

The OP's question is, of course, trivial--a typical attempt by a believer in nonphysical entities to squeeze the ghost back into the machine. Squeezing toothpaste back into the tube would be easier and more practical.

[edit on 23/3/10 by Astyanax]

reply posted on 24-3-2010 @ 12:00 AM by Lilitu

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Lilitu

Thanks for the links. Jaynes's book sounds fascinating and I shall certainly put it on my to-read list, but I am sceptical about his thesis that consciousness evolved in historical time. As one of the reader reviews on Amazon points out, the thesis is unfalsifiable--we can never adopt it except on faith. Personally, I don't do faith.

Jaynes theory consists of four hypotheses so before you dismiss it you really need to examine those. His theory still stands even if we push back the arrival of consciousness to an earlier time but before we do that we need to examine the data on which this hypothesis is based and offer a better explanation. And in my opinion this hypothesis is falsifiable. Doing this would require the discovery of a text or texts much older than the Iliad which make use of metaphorical mental-state words and phrases in the manner of modern humans which would indicate that the author was conscious in the Jaynsian sense.

You might be interested in reading what Dan Dennett has to say about Julian Jaynes’s Software Archeology.

reply posted on 24-3-2010 @ 01:59 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by Lilitu

And in my opinion this hypothesis is falsifiable. Doing this would require the discovery of a text or texts much older than the Iliad which make use of metaphorical mental-state words and phrases in the manner of modern humans which would indicate that the author was conscious in the Jaynsian sense.

Like I said: unfalsifiable.

reply posted on 24-3-2010 @ 08:04 PM by melatonin

Until we know what we are trying to explain, any evolutionary explanation will be lacking.

We'll get there, though. The real-work is going down quietly in psychology/neuroscience (Hameroff's ideas are a waste of effort). Bit by bit, each researcher with their own part of the elephant, and a number attempting to integrate.

The current favoured idea is the Global Workspace Theory. As it happens, the New Scientist had a piece on Baars' hypothesis this week:

Now one theory that claims to do just that is rapidly gaining weight, with strong evidence from research such as Laureys's to back up its predictions. The idea, dubbed the global workspace theory, was first floated in 1983 by Bernard Baars of The Neuroscience Institute in San Diego, California. He proposed that non-conscious experiences are processed locally within separate regions of the brain, like the visual cortex. According to this theory, we only become conscious of this information if these signals are broadcast to an assembly of neurons distributed across many different regions of the brain - the "global workspace" (see diagram) - which then reverberates in a flash of coordinated activity. The result is a mental interpretation of the world that has integrated all the senses into a single picture, while filtering out conflicting pieces of information (see "Neural conflicts").

dinky-link

I'm chuffed this is gaining traction for various reasons. It's a nice idea.

[edit on 24-3-2010 by melatonin]

reply posted on 24-3-2010 @ 09:53 PM by Lilitu

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Lilitu

And in my opinion this hypothesis is falsifiable. Doing this would require the discovery of a text or texts much older than the Iliad which make use of metaphorical mental-state words and phrases in the manner of modern humans which would indicate that the author was conscious in the Jaynsian sense.

Like I said: unfalsifiable.

That's fine, but you are basing your opinion on a web site comment. Read the book.

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 07:47 PM by St Udio

Originally posted by melatonin

[...]
Bernard Baars of The Neuroscience Institute in San Diego, California. He proposed that non-conscious experiences are processed locally within separate regions of the brain, like the visual cortex. According to this theory, we only become conscious of this information if these signals are broadcast to an assembly of neurons distributed across many different regions of the brain - the "global workspace" (see diagram) - which then reverberates in a flash of coordinated activity. The result is a mental interpretation of the world that has integrated all the senses into a single picture, while filtering out conflicting pieces of information (see "Neural conflicts").

would this 'global workspace' equate to the term, concept 'holographic brain' ?

just trying to get the lingo/language right

thanks

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 08:50 PM by melatonin

I doubt it covers it. But not something I'm versed on.

The global workspace has been often related to the concept of the 'Cartesian Theatre'. The theatre is the realm of something comparable to working memory, with a 'spotlight' ability to focus attention on relevant information/stimuli. Elsewhere on the stage is information available to, but just beyond, consciousness.

'Behind the scenes' are the subconscious/unconscious processes. They strongly influence and direct action on the stage. Whereas, the 'audience' receives information directly from the stage.

All sounds a rather fluffy metaphor in that form, but it is attracting support from neuroscience. It is likely more reciprocal and iterative in places than Baars' proposal, though. The main value in this conception of consciousness is the enhanced ability for flexibility and adaptation - readily important from an evolutionary perspective.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by melatonin]

reply posted on 26-3-2010 @ 07:17 PM by igninignaut

reply to post by Donnie Darko

ok so obviously you're just seeking an argument, which is silly, because there is really no argument on either side.

the evidence of one theory does not necessarily negate the other.
have you ever considered that both theories work together.

perhaps evolution was orchestrated by whatever divine being by means of subtle introduction of environmental factors which encouraged growth into certain areas that forced primitive versions of each species to adapt or die.

instead of denying because you're told to i recommend you use your god-given free will to learn from the world around you, just as darwin did. also, i'm not sure if you knew this but he was even more devout in his faith after returning from the galapigos because he felt he understood the brilliance of god's design because of his observations.

reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 09:38 AM by rnaa

reply to post by Donnie Darko

Can Darwinism explain consciousness?

Nope. I don't believe he ever made such an attempt. If he had it would have likely been quite wrong anyway, he just didn't have the tools for understanding what consciousness is. We still don't, mostly.

Sure, Darwinism is a brillant explanation for how life physically came into being

No it isn't. "Darwinism" has nothing to do with "how life physically came into being". You are thinking of Abiogenesis. Furthermore, "Darwinism" is around 80 years obsolete.

So having said that, and taking your "Darwinism" to be incorrect shorthand for the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis"...

- but can it explain why we have self-awareness?

Its a big ask, one of the big questions in all of science.

We are not even sure what exactly consciousness is, so it is going to take some doing to describe account for its evolution.

Figuring out what consciousness is is a multi-discipline project (philosophy, biology, physics, chemistry,... ) that could very likely take many more decades.

I think one of the arguments for consciousness is the argument of complexity, or that memory = consciousness, but computers have memory and not consciousness so I don't buy that.

I don't quite understand your phrase "arguments for consciousness" (is there an argument for/against consciousness?) but I think I get what you are driving at, and I tend to agree. Computers and, more specifically I think, Neural Networks, can help inform us about what to look for in our definition of consciousness, but I personally doubt that we will recognize self-awareness in a computer system.

An interesting take on the subject from Arthur C. Clarke in 1961: Dial F for Frankenstein. Almost 50 years later and the nature of artificial consciousness is still not understood, let alone natural consciousness.

It pretty much self-evidently takes more to consciousness than complexity and memory, you need the right processing algorithms, the right physical structure and interconnections, and probably a lot more stuff.

As has been agreed earlier in the thread, before you can figure out how it might have evolved, you have to first figure out what it is, or at least have a sufficiently good model for it that you can begin speculating on evolutionary scenarios. Then we'll need to argue about those hypothetical scenarios (probably for many decades) before synthesizing then into a theory.

In short: don't hold your breath.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by rnaa]

reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 05:33 PM by Joecroft

reply to post by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Sure, Darwinism is a brillant explanation for how life physically came into being - but can it explain why we have self-awareness?

Darwin’s theory of evolution, does not explain how life physically came into being!… it’s a theory, that describes the processes of life’s development, over a long period of time, once life had already started at the cellular level.

Scientist are uncertain. as to how exactly life started, although they have a rough idea, of most of the elements needed, for life to have begun.

I just wanted to cleat that up…

Anyway getting onto your question about consciousness….

There are different schools of thought regarding consciousness and it’s a big topic in itself, in terms of what it actually is and how it should be defined… Darwin and the theory of evolution though, are not concerned with the area of consciousness, it’s not part of the theory.

I believe in God, so for me personally, I believe that consciousness is the spirit of a living thing.

Although it seems to me that regardless of how you define consciousness, it will automatically have some impact on a species evolutionary development, because of the choices a particular species will make… this is also closely connected to free will, which is another big topic in itself.

For now though, evolution and consciousness, belong to two seprerate fields of science.

- JC

reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 05:49 PM by wayaboveitall

A good question OP.

Personally I suspect some would assume conciousness/selfawareness, evolved along with the brains complexity and perhaps in direct proportion.
but then this may be a fallacy since apes, chimps also have a complex brain, but weather they experience things as we do is debatable. Certainly its been shown that they can comminicate, learn, think and reason,
but we have to decide if its the same or not.

Then there is the question of selectiveness. Why havent they evolved as a side branch to humanity and developed tecknology if complexity of the brain accounts for unique conciousness or self awareness.?
Chimps and apes do recognise themselves in a mirror, this could be claimed self awareness. But do they wonder, do they dream, do they fantasize?

Conciousness itself must be defined separatelyfrom self awareness, since conciousness in all animals is self evident. An unconcious goat dosent do much.

reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 06:18 PM by R-evolve

Can any one really explain self awareness; being conscious of life and experiencing it as an individual. Instead of evolving a long neck to survive we used our minds i guess we needed to ask ourselves questions and need to find the reasoning behind doing things just to stop us from lying down and giving up.

PS wayaboveitall i adore pratchett.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^