Can Darwinism explain consciousness?

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

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.

Computers have memory in a significantly different sense than humans do. I believe I have also read that there is evidence that human brains are similar to quantum computers, which, if I am not mistaken, are not fully developed as a thing yet.

My next point is niggling: Darwinism =/= modern evolutionary theory. Very few people actually believe in direct Darwinism anymore; evolutionary theory has developed far beyond him, and it is the repetition of "Darwinism" in this sense that makes people start arguments like "Well Darwin was wrong about all these things so evolution is false."

Anyway; I think that consciousness probably can be explained by evolution in a broad sense, though I don't know for sure. If there are further realms than the physical, such as the mental, then if there is any sort of reproduction and death in those realms, there must be an analogue to biological evolution whereby the fittest minds will tend to survive and be dominant. If we're limiting it to the purely physical, though, I still think that it's probably explicable, but I'm not sure how.

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. Under this interpretation, we are actually biological robots who seem to ourselves (a word that begs the question, unfortunately) and others to be thinking when in fact we are reacting in very complex ways. I don't actually believe that, but I do like to argue for it just in case, since everyone else is so sure that we are genuinely conscious.

No Darwinism cant explain consciouness. It cant even explain much of what is required to make a logical explanation for evolution.

Darwinism trying to explain consciousness is like trying to cut a dimond with a sledgehammer.

The argument from complexity for consciousness is no argument at all. Just handwaving and an argument from ignorance.

Firstly, you would have to define consciousness. You appear to want to define it as self-awareness. If so, it is quite likely that humans are not alone in having self-awareness/consciousness.

Indeed, a number of mammals might well have such an ability - dolphins, elephants, and other apes have passed the mirror test. It might not even be limited to mammals with lumpy neocortices.

Once we see other species exhibiting such phenomena (either fully or more basic), it isn't a great leap towards an evolutionary explanation.

Even the most 'basic' species have the capacity for learning. And learning & memory are pretty much interlinked. Nematodes learn and show memory capacity - so unless you're good with nematodes expressing consciousness, not the best angle.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by melatonin]

What is consciousness
What is self awareness
What is a soul

These questions are all of a philosophical nature. I cannot say a computer has consciousness, but then again, I cannot say another person has consciousness either because I am not them/it/whatever.

I see a newborn baby. it has no concept, from my perspective, of itself, its surroundings, etc...so, through the days and years, I program that life to notice such things. I also can program a computer in the same way, and frankly, the computer would mimic the behavior much faster than a baby would.

As far as computers go, the only thing missing for the most part is the spark of curiousity to have it initiate learning. Once that is coded in, then I would argue a curious computer is just as alive and self aware as a human being.

If you haven’t heard of Stuart Hameroff, check him out. All the sceptic questions I emailed him, he has answered them 100%. He was showing how consciousness can emerge in the smallest units in life. They are not consciousness lie us of course they are only consciousness for a few seconds.

reply to post by Solasis


This is an interesting question and a valid one, so long as it is not meant to be bait for a religious argument.

I tend to view the human body as a sort of meaty automaton. We are robots that are controlled by an abstraction layer we call the mind. The mind is NOT just the brain. Our nervous system acts as a unit, not a brain computer with sensors. In addition, our nervous system uses quantum effects to interact with our bodies and environments.

When coupled with the rather unreal things that physics keeps discovering about the universe through quantum physics, I have grown rather fond of the idea that the mind/body/soul concept is very real. Our souls are like a person sitting at a computer. Our minds are the software running the computer, the body is the hardware that the software runs.

Anyway, it is a fun conversation piece and yeah, I think sentience and sel-awareness came very early on and have been getting more and more refined over the eons.

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Can Darwinism explain consciousness?

I agree we have to define it first.
One persons reality is different than anothers. I honestly don't think creationism nor evolution can tackle that one. IMO.

Being conscious is being aware of self and your surroundings based in the physical world. But is this the only reality we can know?

reply to post by melatonin


Well we are engineering computers well on their way to be able to be self aware. We created computers. Is it so difficult to think that GOD engineered us? Are we so arrogant to think that that we are the only intelligence in this universe that was created for us? If we can make computers capable of making complex decisions why cant an omnipotent being engineer us pathetic humans? Remember we are the best of his creations, do not let arrogance fool us into thinking that we know it all. People used to think the earth was flat, the atom was the smallest, only time will be able to show that our universe was infact engineered. We just don't have the proper technology and science yet.

Electric impulses triggering chemical compounds that produce a result based upon how a species have evolved, putting into play the physiological needs all the way up to the needs of self actualization; which (self actualization) is the result of more complex brainwave patterns and chemicals being produced due to the specific evolutionary paths.
Monkeys must remember the complex routes of the branches to have survived. The ones that could remember while actively using the branches to gather food and escape predators passed their genes on successfully and so forth. This helped man foster a complex brain.

Anyways, no the modern theory of evolution (which you probably are referring to instead of Darwinism) can not adequately explain consciousness any more or less than religion can (i.e. HURR DURR GAWD DID IT)

God did everything, the problem is, we have to interpret it through scientific research and practice.

Everyone, chill out, because I can see where this may be heading.

In all of the reading on Darwinism that I have done, I have yet to read anything that suggests Darwinism even attempts to explain the rise of consciousness. If taken in the context of Darwinism, consciousness is just another random mutation that has made survival easier for certain species.

I just view this as a prime example of the Straw Man Fallacy

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Link

Person A has position "Darwinism explains the rise of physical animals"
Person B presents position "Darwinism explains the rise of physical animals and consciousness"
Person B Attacks position presented
Therefore Person A's Position is false/incorrect/flawed.


[edit on 15-3-2010 by BlackJackal]

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Darwin couldn't explain nor even the jumps in the primate's evolution 'til reach the condition of homo-erectus and homo-sapiens, how could he have explained why humans are self-awareness??? IMO Darwin was an Illuminati Freemason agent (his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a 33° mason) charged to cover up the tracks among a genetically engineered human race and the "engineers".
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.
Darwinism is a bunk, how could it explain about these deep existential human conditions??

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


No one says that an omnipotent engineer couldn't have created us. Well, some do, but that derives from their saying that he couldn't exist. The argument is usually about whether we need to have been created; whether it's possible that we came into being without being engineered. that is the debate here. It's certain that, if there were some omnipotent engineer, he could have made us. But is it also possible that we could come into being without an omnipotent engineer?

reply to post by BlackJackal


While that is what is usually happening in debates on evolution, that is not what is occurring here. No matter what theory of the origin of persons we go with, the existence of consciousness has to be explained. Evolutionary theory, if it is to be a complete picture of the existence of life, must eventually account for consciousness, or we must find recourse to another theory.

space and time probably lol

reply to post by PRjudo


So far as I know, space and time do not have lungs or vocal cords with which to laugh aloud. but I do like the idea that they are mocking us for our inability to synthesize our ideas of consciousness and evolution.

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Darwinism doesn't really exist anymore, its a term used by annoying Creationists.

Unfortunately consciousness is both difficult to define and difficult to explain. The level of intelligence/awareness we have compared to other apes seems to set us apart from them but what we are unaware of are the human-like ancestors that came before us. Many now believe that before modern humans even evolved early "man" was pretty darn intelligent and that hominids other than ourselves might have developed language, weaponry, and technology to move from place to place (such as boats).

There are plenty of other intelligent species and given enough time we might live to see the evolution of fully developed consciousness in other animals (though our species will either be extinct or totally different by this point).

Consciousness is just a result of brain complexity. Brain has about 100 billion neurons. Each has on average 7,000 synaptic connections with other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10^15 synapses (1 quadrillion)!

There is no single reason why we should not think consciousness and other psychic features of humans are the result of this incredible complex neural network, considering that primitive simulated neural networks containing just dozens of neurons are successfully used to control complex nonlinear tasks and are capable of learning.

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.

I believe that in relatively near future, the question of consciousness will be finaly resolved by simulating an artificial consciouss entity in silico, and it could be the biggest breakthrough of humanity ever.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
but computers have memory and not consciousness so I don't buy that.

Computers do not have memory. What we call computer "memory" is simply a placeholder for data. Your analogy is illogical.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
We created computers. Is it so difficult to think that GOD engineered us? Are we so arrogant to think that that we are the only intelligence in this universe that was created for us?

It is arrogant to believe that something created us and that the universe was created for us. The thought process that claims "we make complex things, therefore all complex things must have been created" is short-sighted. That is an attempt to anthropomorphize the universe and explain the complexity of our surroundings with the actions of a relatively primitive evolved creature.