Consciousness and Evolution

[John21]

Using a loose definition of consciousness and simply saying consciousness is the "awareness that I am" - could this awareness of being emerged gradually or spontaneously?

I'm thinking along the lines of the latter. I'm either aware that I am - or nothing. There doesn't seem to be a gray area.

So in our past if consciousness was the light bulb - was the switch of an on/off or rheostat nature?

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Using a loose definition of consciousness and simply saying consciousness is the "awareness that I am" - could this awareness of being emerged gradually or spontaneously?

I'm thinking along the lines of the latter. I'm either aware that I am - or nothing. There doesn't seem to be a gray area.

So in our past if consciousness was the light bulb - was the switch of an on/off or rheostat nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Chimps and dolphins have been proven to have a sense of identity--dolphins can recognize themselves in a mirror (can't remember exactly how the experiment went, sorry). Is their sense of self as well-defined and intellectually articulated as humans? No, but there's still definitely something there.

[luckyme]

there's some good work in neuroscience that illustrates various stages of consciousness that are identifiable. Specific brain damage in humans can isolate some of them.

luckyme

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
there's some good work in neuroscience that illustrates various stages of consciousness that are identifiable. Specific brain damage in humans can isolate some of them.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about that, and how consciousness develops with infants, but my problem is we know humans, and as samsonite mentioned other animals as well, already have the capacity for consciousness. I was thinking more along the lines of how it emerged in the first place.

It seems that if it didn't occur spontaneously it would've occurred by degrees. So at what point did it start or does it fade into oblivion?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there's some good work in neuroscience that illustrates various stages of consciousness that are identifiable. Specific brain damage in humans can isolate some of them.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about that, and how consciousness develops with infants, but my problem is we know humans, and as samsonite mentioned other animals as well, already have the capacity for consciousness. I was thinking more along the lines of how it emerged in the first place.

It seems that if it didn't occur spontaneously it would've occurred by degrees. So at what point did it start or does it fade into oblivion?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be falling into the same fallacy that led people to argue the eye was irreducibly complex, namely that either you have an eye or you dont. I don't see any particular reason to dismiss the idea that consciousness exists on a continuous gradient from a rock to a human to whatever else. And if thats the case I think it becomes much easier to imagine (and I do mean just imagine, I don't think we have much support for this yet) that consciousness certainly could come about gradually.

[Siegmund]

I think that from a theoretical standpoint there might have been an on-off point: see the results from computer science about what kinds of systems are capable of universal computation, for instance.

However, the threshold at which that type of boundary is crossed is VERY low (as in somewhere between grains of sand bouncing in the surf and primitive bacteria). I think those same results imply that any higher-level criterion you choose to draw is guaranteed to be a fuzzy one (a matter of how easily or quickly a given type of organism can achieve something, NOT a matter of IF it can or not.)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Using a loose definition of consciousness and simply saying consciousness is the "awareness that I am" - could this awareness of being emerged gradually or spontaneously?

I'm thinking along the lines of the latter. I'm either aware that I am - or nothing. There doesn't seem to be a gray area.

So in our past if consciousness was the light bulb - was the switch of an on/off or rheostat nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much rheostat nature. Even today, people's sense of "I" is very intermittent and not at all consistent, from moment to moment.

[ALawPoker]

I think a sense of consciousness is always there; the difference is it's just processed differently amongst different animals. Humans' instincts are ones of highly developed reason and emotion, so a sense of self is defined, to us, according to these instincts. An ant may have the same self-awareness, but to him it is defined as... "turn left".

It just doesn't seem like the type of thing to me that enters the gene pool suddenly (like an on/off light switch, to use your words), but I'm not sure exactly why.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that from a theoretical standpoint there might have been an on-off point: see the results from computer science about what kinds of systems are capable of universal computation, for instance.

However, the threshold at which that type of boundary is crossed is VERY low (as in somewhere between grains of sand bouncing in the surf and primitive bacteria). I think those same results imply that any higher-level criterion you choose to draw is guaranteed to be a fuzzy one (a matter of how easily or quickly a given type of organism can achieve something, NOT a matter of IF it can or not.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. Its sort of analogous to what would constitute life. We have characteristics that we use to call something life/non-life, and they work pretty well but ONLY because nothing happens to exist that only meets some of them, and only part way. Viruses provide a good example, and if there were many more things like viruses, our definition of life/non-life would be exposed for as arbitrary as it really is.

I feel the same is probably true of consciousness, although I certainly don't know that. This initial line you propose may not be in fact a line, but maybe an irregular place on the continuum, and at least that makes it a better place to draw our fake line as any. If the difference between a rock and a bacteria are WAY greater than the difference between a bacteria and a human (even if this is simply due to the luck of there not being anything currently around that fits in between rock and bacteria) then I suppose its an ok place for a fake line.

[Nielsio]

Think about your growing up and lightbulb vs gradual.

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
there's some good work in neuroscience that illustrates various stages of consciousness that are identifiable. Specific brain damage in humans can isolate some of them.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

what exactly do you mean with 'various stages of consciousness'? Not 'various stages of awareness that I am' I'm guessing? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[DonkBluffer]

Also, if consciousness is in the brain somehow, where and what is it? And can one person have more or better consciousness than another?

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that from a theoretical standpoint there might have been an on-off point: see the results from computer science about what kinds of systems are capable of universal computation, for instance.

However, the threshold at which that type of boundary is crossed is VERY low (as in somewhere between grains of sand bouncing in the surf and primitive bacteria). I think those same results imply that any higher-level criterion you choose to draw is guaranteed to be a fuzzy one (a matter of how easily or quickly a given type of organism can achieve something, NOT a matter of IF it can or not.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The simplest universal computers (T machine) are much simpler than a virus or a preon.

[halt i am reptar]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if consciousness is in the brain somehow, where and what is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reading a really cool book on the topic right now. <u>Phantoms in the Brain</u> by Dr. V.S. Ramachandran. I was worried that for someone who doesn't read much, it would be a struggle to get through. But it is a pretty easy read.

[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]

The simplest universal computers (T machine) are much simpler than a virus or a preon.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was basically my point. If you're a believer in any of several popular extensions of the Church-Turing thesis -- basically, if you believe minds are types of computers -- then you are logically forced to accept that there are NO "on/off switches" left to be thrown once you cross that threshold.

I don't know where OP stands on that. A lot of people who ask questions about consciousness would reject it; a lot of people who believe in evolution would accept it.

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if consciousness is in the brain somehow, where and what is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reading a really cool book on the topic right now. <u>Phantoms in the Brain</u> by Dr. V.S. Ramachandran. I was worried that for someone who doesn't read much, it would be a struggle to get through. But it is a pretty easy read.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I've read some reviews of that book. First of all I'm probably gonna buy it because reviews are so positive. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif But also, isn't it just about what happens when the brain gets harmed in some way with explanations how that could happen? If I'd poke my eyes out, I could no longer see. I'd no longer be conscious of 'seeing', but not because consciousness was destroyed, but because of my body.
Similarly, if you mess with certain parts of the brain, certain things might stop functioning. But I don't see how that alters consciousness. (my definition of consciousness is just 'being aware' I think /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if consciousness is in the brain somehow, where and what is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reading a really cool book on the topic right now. <u>Phantoms in the Brain</u> by Dr. V.S. Ramachandran. I was worried that for someone who doesn't read much, it would be a struggle to get through. But it is a pretty easy read.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I've read some reviews of that book. First of all I'm probably gonna buy it because reviews are so positive. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif But also, isn't it just about what happens when the brain gets harmed in some way with explanations how that could happen? If I'd poke my eyes out, I could no longer see. I'd no longer be conscious of 'seeing', but not because consciousness was destroyed, but because of my body.
Similarly, if you mess with certain parts of the brain, certain things might stop functioning. But I don't see how that alters consciousness. (my definition of consciousness is just 'being aware' I think /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if instead of poking out your eyes you damaged your visual cortex, you might not be conscious of seeing something THAT YOU ACTUALLY CAN SEE. And then you might be able to train yourself to become conscious of that thing, without making any structural changes in your brain, which implies that consciousness may simply be some sort of GUI for you to make decisions.