Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Evolution of consciousness
M. Tintner
Friday, 25 September 2009 10:34 UTC
I’ve just been discussing the evolution of consciousness with a friend.
My assumption is that the “surround movie screen” which is (I agree with Hans) the principal content of human consciousness, has steadily evolved through animals – from v. early on in evolution. No doubt, the screen has become steadily more focussed, detailed, coloured, and multi-sensory. But, I assume, there has had to be some kind of “screen” (a somewhat distorted/flattened metaphor for the real thing) – because that screen provides an essential, integrated way to map the world around an animal, and view how things fit together and relate.
My friend, OTOH, questions whether this screen evolved before mammals:
“vertebrate animals which don’t have the visual cortex [meaning non-mammals] have an optic tectum as their primary visual center. The optic tectum responds almost exclusively to moving objects [ie, no one to my knowledge has shown much response to fixed objects]. Eg, frogs will supposedly starve to death surrounded by dozens of dead flys.
Further, the analogue of the optic tectum still exists in mammals, and is called the superior colliculus. SC cells respond mainly to motion. Furthermore, humans who have damaged visual cortices can still respond to objects as long as they are moving.
This last is called “blind sight”. They can respond accurately to moving objects, but they do not “consciously” see. They claim to be blind, and cannot “see” the objects. IOW, to not be able to view the “screen” you’ve been talking about.
What this boils down to is that animals without cortex do not have your screen, or otherwise what we think of as “conscious sight”. "
I would point out in return, that it is hard to see how lower animals can navigate the world as they do, moving between objects, (and having a moving POV of objects) – and that includes navigating mazes – if they don’t have some kind of screen/map of the immediate world.
My assumption is that even a blind worm will not just experienced fragmented, disparate, sensations of objects, for example, but will need to integrate them into tactile “maps” in order to manoeuver the objects as skillfully as it does, and drag them considerable distances to its burrow.
I’d be v. interested to hear the views of the group on all this, and esp. on what is known scientifically – and what attempts have been made to chart the evolution of consciousness in the above sense.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
The outcome of the discussion on the evolution of consciousness will depend on which initial meta-theoretical approach will be selected. We may select the approach that human was created by God, or that the human is a result of evolution, therefore the human only turns to be endowed with consciousness. Such is a pure anthropocentristic doctrine. There can be also a mild form of anthropocentrism which presumes that all living objects possess consciousness, but the human possesses the most refined (to wit, evolved) version of it.
We may also select the approach based on the Law of Conservation of Consciousness. This law has three assertions:
Assertion 1: one self-organizing system (either a natural living organism or an artificial structure) possesses only one exemplar of consciousness.
Assertion 2: all such systems possess the exemplars of consciousness which are equal as to their mechanisms, so their potentialities.
Assertion 3: the total number of all exemplars of consciousness in the Universe is limited and conserves.In other words, all living objects are equally alive, and are equally conscious. Consciousness cannot be made better, because it is expediently potent in all living creatures (otherwise those creatures wouldn’t be living). Yes, some of us become more informed, cleverer, more reasonable, more experienced. But, at that, our consciousness does not change, does not evolve.
Our forbears were not less clever as we are now — such is the scientific fact! More so, it is methodologically correct to compare the mental abilities of the organisms which belong to the same species only. I mean that it would be incorrect asking who is cleverer: a human or a dinosaur.
As to human consciousness (the human’s mental abilities), it is yet a big question whether it is a product of evolution, or devolution. Take, for example, the fact that some persons (like autistic savants) possess the ability to perform the quick mathematical operations with big numbers in mind. Will anybody insist that the ability for quick calculation is the result of a “long process of evolution” and was essential for surviving? (In sense that if some clam had not got a PhD in Mathematics, he could not receive the grant and had to die with hunger). For me, the most rational would be to suppose that consciousness is present in all living organisms in its universal full version, but is used by the concrete organism to such or other extent depending on its way of life, or its current needs. When performing mental self-cultivation, it is not consciousness that refines, but the skill of accessing to its hidden universal potentialities.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy -
Serge Patlavskiy 2 Oct 09 [NBPCC]
… the Law of Conservation of Consciousness … has three assertions:
Assertion 1: one self-organizing system (either a natural living organism or an artificial structure) possesses only one exemplar of consciousness.
Assertion 2: all such systems possess the exemplars of consciousness which are equal as to their mechanisms, so their potentialities.
Assertion 3: the total number of all exemplars of consciousness in the Universe is limited and conserves.
In other words, all living objects are equally alive, and are equally conscious.Assertion 1a: consciousness is only exemplary to the self-organizing system having it.
Corollary: consciousness is incommensurable.
Assertion 2: seems to claim
all self-organizing systems possess consciousness[?]
there is only one mechanism of consciousness[?]
these (and Assertion 3) are divinatory universal abstractions (and on the face of it absurd) – unkowable, untestable. Trading divinatory fables in an economy of abstract frogspawn isn’t a useful way to go.Fictions of consciousness need to be useful for investigation.
Thinking of consciousness as autologous and incommensurable precludes a lot of pointless effort.
Epistemic autologousness implies that the only access to consciousness is through self-report, so an investigatory craft to do it well-enough is required, from which commensurability flows. -
[Consciousness: A linguistic error? A category mistake? Philip Benjamin]
Bob Marsden, questions Serge Patlavskiy as follows:.. All self-organizing systems possess consciousness[?]
There is only one mechanism of consciousness[?]
These (and Assertion 3) are divinatory universal abstractions (and on the face of it absurd) – unkowable, untestable. Trading divinatory fables in an economy of abstract frogspawn isn’t a useful way to go.
Fictions of consciousness need to be useful for investigation.
….. Epistemic autologousness implies that the only access to consciousness is through self-report,….[Philip Benjamin]
What is consciousness? Science knows not for sure (perhaps other than some ‘religion’ or as some arbitrarily prefer to call ‘spirituality’, practitioners). An analogous question on ANY known PHYSICAL entity can be easily answered. For example, what is energy? Though humans EXPLAINED energy in peculiar fashions down through the ages, ENERGY itself was not a known observable phenomenon. Heat, for example, irrespective of its source was “observable” or measurable as cold, warm, warmer, hot, very hot etc, leading eventually to a ‘precise’ definition.
‘Life’ is observable, measurable. ‘Self’ can be experimented with/ or experienced in a first person or even a third person context. One cannot and should not equate “self” with being CONSCIOUS of self, any more than equate heat with temperature. Being “conscious of” is an ‘act’, a verb; translating that verb into the noun ‘CONSCIOUSNESS’ is not only a linguistic error deserving an F grade, it is a category mistake.
William James did not do that. As I have indicated earlier of the 20+ components of ‘Self’, he had no need for ‘consciousness’.
Philip Benjamin
-
Correction
Though humans EXPLAINED energy in peculiar fashions down through the ages, ENERGY itself was a known observable phenomenon.
There was a typo of "not’ before ‘a known’
Philip Benjamin
-
Bob Marsden on 03 October 2009 wrote:
“Assertion 1a: consciousness is only exemplary to the self-organizing system having it.
Corollary: consciousness is incommensurable.”[S.P.] In this thread we are discussing not my ideas, but the question whether we may talk about such thing as evolution of consciousness. My argument is that if we construct the explanatory framework being based on the Law of Conservation of Consciousness, then we may positively reply to Mike Tintner’s suppositions he has expressed in a preamble. Namely, he has said: “I would point out in return, that it is hard to see how lower animals can navigate the world as they do, moving between objects, (and having a moving POV of objects) – and that includes navigating mazes – if they don’t have some kind of screen/map of the immediate world. My assumption is that even a blind worm will not just experienced fragmented, disparate, sensations of objects, for example, but will need to integrate them into tactile “maps” in order to manoeuver the objects as skillfully as it does, and drag them considerable distances to its burrow.”
So, it would be advisable expressing views concerning the main topic of this thread. As to my Assertion 1, it answers the question Bob once asked in his jcs-online post #6880 on April, 23 this year. The question was: “3 is my experienced consciousness made out of little bits of brain consciousness, and if so what is its arithmetic and how can I get at it?”. Now then, as follows from the Law, if we have one organism, we have one, and only one exemplar of consciousness.
Also: it is an organism as a whole self-organizing system that possesses consciousness, but not the brain. (As Mike Tintner says that when talking about the self, we have to talk about “the WHOLE brain-and-body”; see his post to the Mind&Brain forum on 29 Apr 2008). Also: life, self-organization, and consciousness cannot be present disjointly from each other. If there is life, there necessarily must be consciousness and self-organization, and vice versa. The state of self-organization — it is the system’s ability to keep its entropy on some sufficiently low level. This is most effectively being achieved through the activity of consciousness, since processing and conceptualization of information reduces the entropy of the whole system. (In nature, such an entropy reduction takes place in water; see http://www.world-science.net/othernews/090814_water).
Bob Marsden wrote:
“Assertion 2: seems to claim all self-organizing systems possess consciousness[?] there is only one mechanism of consciousness[?]”.[S.P.] My Assertion 2 claims that whether we take a worm, a rat, a human, or an alien, the mechanism of their exemplars of consciousness is the same. Also: their exemplars of consciousness have equal potentiality, which means that as among the humans, so among the worms and rats, there are as the geniuses, so the blockheads. Here, we should make a difference between the “uncovering the potentiality of consciousness” and the “evolution of consciousness”.
Bob Marsden wrote:
“these (and Assertion 3) are divinatory universal abstractions (and on the face of it absurd) – unkowable, untestable. Trading divinatory fables in an economy of abstract frogspawn isn’t a useful way to go.”[S.P.] Initially, I formulate the following meta-theoretical assertion: information (or consciousness as a way of dealing with information) is one of three equally important factors (together with matter and energy) that influences the existence and development of our Reality. Then, for the whole meta-theoretical construction to stay non-self-contradictory, I have to formulate Assertion 3 concerning the conservation of consciousness (we already have the laws of conservation of matter and energy). But, I would prefer here to talk shops. It is when the baker discusses matters with the baker, the cobbler with the cobbler, and so on. So, I would like discussing these matters (especially on how to test the meta-theoretical systems) with the person who himself has made an attempt to construct his own explanatory framework.
At any case, I would abstain calling absurd something that I do not understand enough well, or in which I am not an expert. For this reason, I am not calling absurd Bob’s idea, that “monadics for the monadians – exomonadics for all the rest” (jcs-online post #6880).
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy
http://www.serge-patlavskiy.webs.com -
Serge Patlavskiy wrote: “The outcome of the discussion on the evolution of consciousness will depend on which initial meta-theoretical approach will be selected”.
[Philip Benjamin]
This is a perfectly justifiable scientific position. Your formulation of a method to approach any “PHYSICAL” problem of science is also standard procedure. However, when the “question” itself is questionable, any scientific methodilogy will produce only more questions.
1. Is “consciousness” real, that is is it a measurable, observable physical entity?
2. When and how did this unknown “something” got into the sientific discourse and literature?
3. Was it a replacement for the “commonly” known “mind” or “soul” or “spirit”?
4. Is it a an electromagnetic physical entity or as some “spiritual” philosphers will posit a “meta mind” whatever that means!!?
5. Is it the Buddhist version of the First Cause or the Advaita Brahman?
What in the world- that is the physical world of atoms and molecules and cells and ogans and life and sentience and sapience and cognition and intelligence and mind and psyche and brain and neurons- is this inexplicable “monstrocity” called consciousness?
If you do not know that it does exist, how can you formulate any method to tackle it?
Sincerely,
Philip Benjamin
-
Philip Benjamin on 6 October 2009 wrote:
1. Is “consciousness” real, that is is it a measurable, observable physical entity?[S.P.] I prefer to use the term “existent” instead of the “real”. So, consciousness is existent. At the same time it is not physical/material. My meta-theoretical system presumes treating information (or consciousness as a way of dealing with information) as one of three equally important factors (together with matter and energy) which influences the existence and development of our Reality. So, consciousness is not reducible to matter, nor to energy — it itself is a fundamental factor.
Philip Benjamin wrote:
2. When and how did this unknown “something” got into the sientific discourse and literature?
3. Was it a replacement for the “commonly” known “mind” or “soul” or “spirit”?[S.P.] Consciousness, as we know it now, is discussed for two or three decades. Earlier it was just a medical term used to say that the patient either loses or regains its consciousness. The Science of Consciousness does not use such terms as “soul” or “spirit”.
Philip Benjamin wrote:
4. Is it a an electromagnetic physical entity or as some “spiritual” philosphers will posit a “meta mind” whatever that means!!?[S.P.] Why not to ask those philosophers? As I have said above, consciousness is not reducible either to matter or energy.
Philip Benjamin wrote:
5. Is it the Buddhist version of the First Cause or the Advaita Brahman?[S.P.] I am not a Buddhist, so I can say nothing on this matter.
Philip Benjamin wrote:
If you do not know that it does exist, how can you formulate any method to tackle it?[S.P.] I know for sure that consciousness is existent.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy -
[Philip Benjamin] Consciousness: A new term in Science literature? Fact or Fiction or Artifice?
Illumination is needed on Serge Patlavskiy’s replies to 6 questions from Philip Benjamin.
Reply to Qustion # 6. “[S.P]I know for sure that consciousness is existent”.
[Philip Benjamin]
Does changing “REAL” in my question to “EXISTENT” in your reply add any little to clarify the issue? Existent comes from the Latin EXISTERE (ex= forth, stere= to stand) meaning something which ‘stand fast’ (firm) or endure. What else, other than REAL things, stand firm? Can anything unreal be existent(Occam tells me exist is good enough)? Square root of (-1)is not existent, it is always imaginary and unreal. It is useful in theoretical calculations ( not practical perceptions) as an IMMAGINARY number because its ‘mathematical’ square is always a ‘REAL’ number.
Reply to Questions # 2 & 3
“[S.P.] Consciousness, as we know it now, is discussed for two or three decades. Earlier it was just a medical term used to say that the patient either loses or regains its consciousness. The Science of Consciousness does not use such terms as “soul” or “spirit””.
[Philip Benjamin]
My use of the term “when and how” was perhaps misleading. My apologies for that. I was referring to the “circumstances”, not the chronology, wherein this word crept in unawares (at least to the realist Neils Bohr) into scientific discourse.
“The poor you have with you always”, in the social world of competition. So are the ‘mystics always with you’ in the scientific world of skepticism. Heisenberg and Schrodinger were not ‘REAL’ skeptics. They were mystic believers. Their psychologist friend Jung (the ‘collective unconscious’ originator & purist) who just completed a 1-year ‘practicum’ in SORCERY (near Bangalore, India)reinforced their mysticism. [By mysticism, I mean a subjective experience of the unreal or the unearthly as objective reality).For Neils Bohr physical “existent” particles below certain dimensions behaves AS IF they are waves to which certain mathematical (wave) equations can be applied, but these particles always remained particles. He did not have to equate “wave-likeness” to ‘real’ waves. It is these mystics who had to borrow and add all these esoteric meanings to ordinary English words to explain a fictitious ‘mind’ dependent collapse of a mathematical “wave function”, and made any scentific discourse or reasoning on “matter-waves” incompatible with their dogmaticism and doctrinaire pontifications. Thus ‘real’ solid scientists left their skepticisms to became real Pontifs of Science. No questions needed or welcome!!
Your simple assertion that the Science of Consciousness does not use such terms as ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ does not make ‘consciousness’ which nobody including yourself cannot define, any different than either term. By the way, these discarded words including psyche have their roots in ‘breath’ or ‘wind’ meaning “life” because when the “wind” (breath) ceases life ceases. That is true in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Latin and Greek. The ancients, unlike the moderns, were at least smart enough to figure out that much!!
Replies to Questions # 4 & 5. “[S.P.] Why not ask those philosophers? As I have said above, consciousness is not reducible either to matter or energy”.
“[S.P.] I am not a Buddhist, so I can say nothing on this matter”.
[Philip Benjamin]
When you say “matter or energy” you are obviously referring to the electromagnetic realm. So ‘consciousness’ is NOT electromagnetic. Could this then be non-EM, yet physical and not mystical (i.e.unreal)as you imply?
Clearly, you deny using terms of the “spirituality” philosophers or of Buddhism or Advaita or Animistic ’spirit’or ‘soul’. That is an exception, since all modern explanations of “consciousness” are based on some doctrinaire religious or metaphysical views. Since you also reject both EM and non-EM approach to the ‘mental world’ of real biology, what would be a specifc nomenclature or classification of the “elements” or “non-elements” of
“consciousness” as you would want to define? Otherwise “consciousness” will be not even a fiction, only an ‘existent’ subjective artifice that cannot be defined.Sincerely,
Philip Benjamin
-
Errata:
…which nobody including yourself cannot define,
Regret the double negatives.…which nobody including yourself can define…
Philip Benjamin -
[Yawn] Aren’t we supposed to be discussing evolution and scientific examples?
Personally, I think the focus on visual senses/sight when discussing evolution is interesting but begs the question whether we should be thinking more broadly (I’ll admit bias here, as I’m a sound/mechanical sensation researcher, but in the end they are all related) to chart the evolution of ‘consciousness’ (whatever that may be). Indeed, what is the point of trying to metaphysically define ‘consciousness’ without thinking about how the biological mechanisms behind sensation/action etc. have evolved and developed as well our current subjective top-down understanding?
So I think it is an excellent question and would also love to know more about the neural pathways behind simpler visual systems. I think it is believed that complex eyes developed from these simpler systems and that modern versions are still found in amphibians, fish, jellyfish and even bacteria… I have also read that some evolutionary biologists believe that versions of the eye (and thus underlying neural systems) may have evolved more than once (i.e. in different organisms).
In a more practical sense, I think it will be difficult enough to look at the possible underlying neural pathway evolution of visual systems, then it will be doubly difficult to link this with grounded hypotheses from animal psychology about their possible subjective visual ‘sensations’ and how these may have evolved. There may be a simpler way to do it, but I often think lazy investigation causes more problems in the long run.
One last point! Remember that evolution/biology is always a bit messy and non-linear, for instance general visual, finger tactile and abstract thought may be important in human brains, but mice are better at smell, feeling with whiskers and seeing in the dark. These kind of differences (as well as difference in other physiological systems) may be built upon similar mechanisms but will also show striking differences – this is the basis of the current problems with using model organisms in pharmaceutical research – so I think we just have to be really careful when we talk about the evolution of ‘consciousness’.
Results
-
