Biological Function and Evolution - Notes

Biological function and evolution[edit]
Opinions are divided as to where in biological evolution consciousness emerged and about whether

or not consciousness has any survival value. Some argue that consciousness is a byproduct of
evolution. It has been argued that consciousness emerged (i) exclusively with the first humans, (ii)
exclusively with the first mammals, (iii) independently in mammals and birds, or (iv) with the first
reptiles.[114] Other authors date the origins of consciousness to the first animals with nervous systems
or early vertebrates in the Cambrian over 500 million years ago. [115] Donald Griffin suggests in his
book Animal Minds a gradual evolution of consciousness.[67] Each of these scenarios raises the
question of the possible survival value of consciousness.
Thomas Henry Huxley defends in an essay titled On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and
its History an epiphenomenalist theory of consciousness according to which consciousness is a
causally inert effect of neural activity—"as the steam-whistle which accompanies the work of a
locomotive engine is without influence upon its machinery". [116] To this William James objects in his
essay Are We Automata? by stating an evolutionary argument for mind-brain interaction implying
that if the preservation and development of consciousness in the biological evolution is a result
of natural selection, it is plausible that consciousness has not only been influenced by neural
processes, but has had a survival value itself; and it could only have had this if it had been
efficacious.[117][118] Karl Popper develops in the book The Self and Its Brain a similar evolutionary
argument.[119]
Regarding the primary function of conscious processing, a recurring idea in recent theories is that
phenomenal states somehow integrate neural activities and information-processing that would
otherwise be independent.[120] This has been called the integration consensus. Another example has
been proposed by Gerald Edelman called dynamic core hypothesis which puts emphasis
on reentrant connections that reciprocally link areas of the brain in a massively parallel manner.
[121]
Edelman also stresses the importance of the evolutionary emergence of higher-order
consciousness in humans from the historically older trait of primary consciousness which humans
share with non-human animals (see Neural correlates section above). These theories of integrative
function present solutions to two classic problems associated with consciousness: differentiation and
unity. They show how our conscious experience can discriminate between a virtually unlimited
number of different possible scenes and details (differentiation) because it integrates those details
from our sensory systems, while the integrative nature of consciousness in this view easily explains
how our experience can seem unified as one whole despite all of these individual parts. However, it
remains unspecified which kinds of information are integrated in a conscious manner and which
kinds can be integrated without consciousness. Nor is it explained what specific causal role
conscious integration plays, nor why the same functionality cannot be achieved without
consciousness. Obviously not all kinds of information are capable of being disseminated consciously
(e.g., neural activity related to vegetative functions, reflexes, unconscious motor programs, low-level
perceptual analyses, etc.) and many kinds of information can be disseminated and combined with
other kinds without consciousness, as in intersensory interactions such as the ventriloquism effect.
[122]
Hence it remains unclear why any of it is conscious. For a review of the differences between
conscious and unconscious integrations, see the article of E. Morsella. [122]
As noted earlier, even among writers who consider consciousness to be a well-defined thing, there
is widespread dispute about which animals other than humans can be said to possess it.[123] Edelman
has described this distinction as that of humans possessing higher-order consciousness while
sharing the trait of primary consciousness with non-human animals (see previous paragraph). Thus,
any examination of the evolution of consciousness is faced with great difficulties. Nevertheless,
some writers have argued that consciousness can be viewed from the standpoint of evolutionary
biology as an adaptation in the sense of a trait that increases fitness.[124] In his article "Evolution of
consciousness", John Eccles argued that special anatomical and physical properties of the
mammalian cerebral cortex gave rise to consciousness ("[a] psychon ... linked to [a] dendron through
quantum physics").[125] Bernard Baars proposed that once in place, this "recursive" circuitry may have
provided a basis for the subsequent development of many of the functions that consciousness
facilitates in higher organisms.[126] Peter Carruthers has put forth one such potential adaptive
advantage gained by conscious creatures by suggesting that consciousness allows an individual to
make distinctions between appearance and reality. [127] This ability would enable a creature to
recognize the likelihood that their perceptions are deceiving them (e.g. that water in the distance
may be a mirage) and behave accordingly, and it could also facilitate the manipulation of others by
recognizing how things appear to them for both cooperative and devious ends.
Other philosophers, however, have suggested that consciousness would not be necessary for any
functional advantage in evolutionary processes.[128][129] No one has given a causal explanation, they
argue, of why it would not be possible for a functionally equivalent non-conscious organism (i.e.,
a philosophical zombie) to achieve the very same survival advantages as a conscious organism. If
evolutionary processes are blind to the difference between function F being performed by conscious
organism O and non-conscious organism O*, it is unclear what adaptive advantage consciousness
could provide.[130] As a result, an exaptive explanation of consciousness has gained favor with some
theorists that posit consciousness did not evolve as an adaptation but was an exaptation arising as a
consequence of other developments such as increases in brain size or cortical rearrangement.
[115]
Consciousness in this sense has been compared to the blind spot in the retina where it is not an
adaption of the retina, but instead just a by-product of the way the retinal axons were wired.
[131]
Several scholars including Pinker, Chomsky, Edelman, and Luria have indicated the importance
of the emergence of human language as an important regulative mechanism of learning and
memory in the context of the development of higher-order consciousness (see Neural
correlates section above).

Biological Function and Evolution - Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biological Function and Evolution - Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biological Function and Evolution - Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biological function and evolution[edit]

Opinions are divided as to where in biological evolution consciousness emerged and about whether

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.