Can Evolutionary Theory Explain Human Consciousness?

[phildwyer]

That's interesting.

phildwyer can you expand on that?

Basically, human consciousness develops (or rather moves) through a series of historical stages, the latest of which is characterized by an alienation of subject from object, which has given rise to ultra-materialist, Darwinian theories of evolution (which should be differentiated from earlier theories of evolution--no-one is disputing evolution per se).

In their most extreme form, such theories turn into socio-biology and evolutionary psychology, which suggest that *everything,* including consciousness itself, can be explained by the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to their environment.

Historicist theories of consciousness can explain why such aberrations have arisen by taking a totalizing view of human thought, and showing that the subject-object disjunction in 'science' is paralleled by the alienation of subjective activity in the objective form of capital. This connection provides an ethical perspective on materialist science, among other benefits.

 

[phildwyer]

Or point out, again, that they ought to read Hegel. They won't, of course, and to be brutally frank, that means there ain't much point in engaging with them.

That sounds insufferably arrogant doesn't it? I'm sorry. In my defence: I am responding to the even more insufferable arrogance of our scientistic fundamentalist friends, who apparently aspire to the style and manner of their mentor, the cretinous Richard Dawkins. But let me explain what I mean.

First of all, to people who are unfamiliar with philosophy, it can seem as if people like Gorski and myself are just talking nonsense. And it is lamentable that most scientists in the West are indeed unfamiliar with philosophy--this is actually the major problem with Western thought at present. But what I object to is that many of them--Gurrier and Jonti are prime instances--do not even appreciate that their ignorance of philosophy is a fault. They do not understand the value of philosophy, so not only have they never read any, they never *will* read any. That is why I call such people 'half-educated.'

What they miss by this negligence is the ability to *contextualize* their ideas. They cannot place their views in historical context, and they cannot see how their views relate to other social phenomena. They really do believe that Western men suddendly discovered the truth around 1850. They really do believe that all previous thought, as well as all thought from other cultures, is simply wrong.

That is a deeply stupid, not to mention racist, attitude. Its complicity with colonialism and capitalism *should* need no explication, but unfortunately it does. These people will deny that there is any connection between post-Baconian science and capitalism. They will claim that it is just coincidence that the two arose at the same time, and in the same place. They must be told, in no uncertain terms, how foolish such opinions are.

Anyway, we can return to the debate now. I just wanted to explain why it is hard to converse with people who proudly proclaim their ignorance of thought other than their own.

 

[phildwyer]

Just one final musing on consciousness and evolution. Consciousness is, among other things, the knowledge of death. It also involves a revulsion against death. That is to say, consciousness is at root a rebellion against the conditions of our existence: a revolt against what we are.

Clearly it makes no evolutionary sense for a creature to develop a revulsion against itself. And yet that is what human beings have done. I conclude from this that consciousness cannot possibly be the result of evolution.

And perhaps it will not go amiss to note that the likes of Jonti, who so obviously *need* to reduce the human soul to a function of matter, perfectly mirror the poverty and corruption of such a world-view in the vile pettiness and self-important, humorless bombast with which they conduct themselves in this forum.

 

[Fruitloop]

'Death-drive'

For the record I don't think consciousness has an evolutionary advantage, only information-processing/computation does. The defining feature of consciousness in terms of the 'hard problem' is its superfluity, the fact of having a 'first-hand' experience of phenomena, mental objects etc. As soon as you are talking about something that a Chalmers zombie could possess and still have the same degree of inclusive fitness then consciousness has disappeared from view. (It does that!).

Personally I reckon death-drive requires consciousness plus the symbolic order, but that's not relevant to the present discussion particularly.

 

[Fruitloop]

We want computers to understand everything - including all of the temporal concepts and relationships used by people. We build ontologies - formal, structured models of the relationships between entities, classes and instances in the domain - because this allows computers to map our words to its internal formal model of time.

OK. I guess I'm approaching this from the point of view of machine intelligence as a project in itself, rather than as an attempt to model what we do. The two fields are diverging somewhat IMO, and will do so much more in the future.

 

[gorski]

That sounds insufferably arrogant doesn't it? I'm sorry. In my defence: I am responding to the even more insufferable arrogance of our scientistic fundamentalist friends, who apparently aspire to the style and manner of their mentor, the cretinous Richard Dawkins. But let me explain what I mean.

First of all, to people who are unfamiliar with philosophy, it can seem as if people like Gorski and myself are just talking nonsense. And it is lamentable that most scientists in the West are indeed unfamiliar with philosophy--this is actually the major problem with Western thought at present. But what I object to is that many of them--Gurrier and Jonti are prime instances--do not even appreciate that their ignorance of philosophy is a fault. They do not understand the value of philosophy, so not only have they never read any, they never *will* read any. That is why I call such people 'half-educated.'

What they miss by this negligence is the ability to *contextualize* their ideas. They cannot place their views in historical context, and they cannot see how their views relate to other social phenomena. They really do believe that Western men suddendly discovered the truth around 1850. They really do believe that all previous thought, as well as all thought from other cultures, is simply wrong.

That is a deeply stupid, not to mention racist, attitude. Its complicity with colonialism and capitalism *should* need no explication, but unfortunately it does. These people will deny that there is any connection between post-Baconian science and capitalism. They will claim that it is just coincidence that the two arose at the same time, and in the same place. They must be told, in no uncertain terms, how foolish such opinions are.

Anyway, we can return to the debate now. I just wanted to explain why it is hard to converse with people who proudly proclaim their ignorance of thought other than their own.

Where do I sign?

In defence of Phil, I would say it's not arrogant at all. More like "realistic", insofar as this is exactly what is happening in a huge, great majority of cases... Ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand. The less you know the less you think you don't know. And then the nonsense starts. The more you know the more you see you don't know and humility begins.

This is why, I presume, Phil and I, but not exclusively, are outraged by it all and have the need to challenge and even, if and when necessary, ridicule such attitudes, each in our own manner.

Imagine someone [completely "lay"] coming into Science [say a Mullah] and not being educated in it at all, nevertheless freely spreads one's ignorance and prejudices in an unqualified and narrow and even close minded friend-or-foe manner. What would it seem like? But it seems Philosophy is somehow exempted from such minimal and otherwise necessary consideration...

Something similar [to change an example slightly and substitute "Mullah" for a "scientist" in a debate with Philosophy now] goes on with such Mullah "experts" when an "outsider" dares reciprocate and pass a judgement on "his territory", which one might even know much better than the reverse is the case. I say that because Philosophers have to, by definition, study Methodology and Logics etc. and by default we know aplenty of Science. But the reverse is frequently NOT the case, sadly!!! And then a critical approach to Science is frequently mistaken for an "attack" of a "dogmatic" kind, as if we're working for the "enemy" or such friend-or-foe, black-or-white, either-or nonsense. Hair raising moments!

Cringing experience, most of the time...

 

[Spion]

That sounds insufferably arrogant doesn't it? I'm sorry. In my defence: I am responding to the even more insufferable arrogance of our scientistic fundamentalist friends, who apparently aspire to the style and manner of their mentor, the cretinous Richard Dawkins. But let me explain what I mean.

First of all, to people who are unfamiliar with philosophy, it can seem as if people like Gorski and myself are just talking nonsense. And it is lamentable that most scientists in the West are indeed unfamiliar with philosophy--this is actually the major problem with Western thought at present. But what I object to is that many of them--Gurrier and Jonti are prime instances--do not even appreciate that their ignorance of philosophy is a fault. They do not understand the value of philosophy, so not only have they never read any, they never *will* read any. That is why I call such people 'half-educated.'

What they miss by this negligence is the ability to *contextualize* their ideas. They cannot place their views in historical context, and they cannot see how their views relate to other social phenomena. They really do believe that Western men suddendly discovered the truth around 1850. They really do believe that all previous thought, as well as all thought from other cultures, is simply wrong.

That is a deeply stupid, not to mention racist, attitude. Its complicity with colonialism and capitalism *should* need no explication, but unfortunately it does. These people will deny that there is any connection between post-Baconian science and capitalism. They will claim that it is just coincidence that the two arose at the same time, and in the same place. They must be told, in no uncertain terms, how foolish such opinions are.

Anyway, we can return to the debate now. I just wanted to explain why it is hard to converse with people who proudly proclaim their ignorance of thought other than their own.

Looks to me like you want to treat 'philosophy' as a religion, with Hegel as your bible/qur'an.

The straw men really do come out in force near the end too.

Just my first impressions. I'll try and return and read the thread when i have time

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, accusations abound on all sides, equally of misrepresentation of science from the Philosophical - including 'dialectical' - side, plus the crimes of pomo - Sokal hoax etc. Also the ethnocentrism of philosophical and historical thought - not always the history of the world's ideas that it purports, but rather selections from a few Greek thinkers germane to and filtered by Christian Rome. The ontological caution of scientific papers is ignored in favour of the ideological cant of pop science and science journalism. Neither 'side' can see the plank in their own eye!

It's true that the best scientists take note and also inspiration from the philosophical side of things, but to say that there is 'nothing new under the sun' goes too far. Take the case of Einstein who was well acquainted with preceding thought, and yet it should not devalue his scientific achievements qua science - novel, testable predictions of deviations from classical mechanics (and more particularly any naive 'folk' physics expectations from the world of 'medium-sized dry goods') that continue to be validated a posteriori.

Best take the Buddha's word for it:

Believe nothing because a so called wise man said it.
Believe nothing because a belief is generally held.
Believe nothing because it is written in ancient books.
Believe nothing because it is said to be of divine origin.
Believe nothing because someone else believes it.
Believe only what you yourself judge to be true.

 

[gorski]

Indeed. But then, judgement can be informed... or not... That's the issue here.

 

[Nikolai]

Basically, human consciousness develops (or rather moves) through a series of historical stages, the latest of which is characterized by an alienation of subject from object, which has given rise to ultra-materialist, Darwinian theories of evolution (which should be differentiated from earlier theories of evolution--no-one is disputing evolution per se).

In their most extreme form, such theories turn into socio-biology and evolutionary psychology, which suggest that *everything,* including consciousness itself, can be explained by the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to their environment.

Historicist theories of consciousness can explain why such aberrations have arisen by taking a totalizing view of human thought, and showing that the subject-object disjunction in 'science' is paralleled by the alienation of subjective activity in the objective form of capital. This connection provides an ethical perspective on materialist science, among other benefits.

Thanks phildwyer, that response has pointed me in the right direction i think - with regards to my initial question

 

[Fruitloop]

Indeed. But then, judgement can be informed... or not... That's the issue here.

Yeah, he should have added 'unless you're a cretin'.

Probably did, the wily old bastard.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just one final musing on consciousness and evolution. Consciousness is, among other things, the knowledge of death. It also involves a revulsion against death. That is to say, consciousness is at root a rebellion against the conditions of our existence: a revolt against what we are.

Clearly it makes no evolutionary sense for a creature to develop a revulsion against itself. And yet that is what human beings have done. I conclude from this that consciousness cannot possibly be the result of evolution.

As often happens, it seems, I find your analysis to be good, but your conclusion to be invalid.

Is consciousness to the evolutionary advantage of human beings? As Mao famously said when asked to evaluate the French Revolution, it is too early to tell.

 

[Spion]

Just one final musing on consciousness and evolution. Consciousness is, among other things, the knowledge of death. It also involves a revulsion against death. That is to say, consciousness is at root a rebellion against the conditions of our existence: a revolt against what we are.

This is monkey logic. You're saying because death is *one of* the things we muse on, and we err, don't like death, consciousness is (giant leap alert here) *at root* a revulsion against what we are? What utter one-dimensional syllogistic twaddle. We are living as well as dying. Our consciousness enables us to embrace and know life as well as recognise that we will die and become mere matter on death.

Clearly it makes no evolutionary sense for a creature to develop a revulsion against itself.

I fail to see how a fear of death equates to revulsion against ourselves. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought

And yet that is what human beings have done. I conclude from this that consciousness cannot possibly be the result of evolution.

Is that really the essence of your argument? I'm staggered, tbh

And perhaps it will not go amiss to note that the likes of Jonti, who so obviously *need* to reduce the human soul to a function of matter, perfectly mirror the poverty and corruption of such a world-view in the vile pettiness and self-important, humorless bombast with which they conduct themselves in this forum.

Translation: "Jonti, I hate you, nerrrrr, you stink"

 

[kyser_soze]

And perhaps it will not go amiss to note that the likes of Jonti, who so obviously *need* to reduce the human soul to a function of matter, perfectly mirror the poverty and corruption of such a world-view in the vile pettiness and self-important, humorless bombast with which they conduct themselves in this forum.

When I see a storm I know that it's made of hot and cold air, high and low pressure systems, meeting each other. It doesn't mean I don't also see something I think to be majestic; something of which it's very existance, if I'm standing in the wind, imparts a feeling of freedom and wonder in me.

As I've said on numerous occassions, this is the same argument theists (esp. Xtians) make about atheists and their having morals or not. The idea that because I might view the soul as being some kind of quantum signature of human conciousness, that it has a material rather than mystical explanation, doesn't reduce my 'Oh wow' factor over these things.

There's more magic in the real world than anything we make up.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Clearly it makes no evolutionary sense for a creature to develop a revulsion against itself. And yet that is what human beings have done. I conclude from this that consciousness cannot possibly be the result of evolution.

You could, by extension, also say that it makes no evolutionary sense for an animal not to bond with its offspring and nurture them into adulthood. This happens time and again in the animal world so would you argue that reproduction could not possibly be the result of evolutionary forces?

 

[Kizmet]

Just one final musing on consciousness and evolution. Consciousness is, among other things, the knowledge of death. It also involves a revulsion against death. That is to say, consciousness is at root a rebellion against the conditions of our existence: a revolt against what we are.

Clearly it makes no evolutionary sense for a creature to develop a revulsion against itself. And yet that is what human beings have done. I conclude from this that consciousness cannot possibly be the result of evolution.

So a child is not conscious until you teach it about death?

Seriously?

 

[gorski]

As often happens, it seems, I find your analysis to be good, but your conclusion to be invalid.

Is consciousness to the evolutionary advantage of human beings? As Mao famously said when asked to evaluate the French Revolution, it is too early to tell.

Sadly, I think this is all wrong: it is not too early to tell whether or not the French Revolution brought about something Novel in an emancipatory sense. It did. No debate. Of course, Mao wouldn't have wanted any debate on the issues, as he and co. had no ideals of that sort to fight for...

Did it all turn out rosy with the FR? Nope. Can it eventually get to where the initial stages of it pointed [Liberté, égalité, fraternité]? It can, depending on us, sure...

 

[gorski]

OKI, let's try to see how silly this has become and the level has plumetted...

Originally Posted by phildwyer
Just one final musing on consciousness and evolution. Consciousness is, among other things, the knowledge of death. It also involves a revulsion against death. That is to say, consciousness is at root a rebellion against the conditions of our existence: a revolt against what we are.

Then you say:

This is monkey logic. You're saying because death is *one of* the things we muse on, and we err, don't like death, consciousness is (giant leap alert here) *at root* a revulsion against what we are? What utter one-dimensional syllogistic twaddle. We are living as well as dying. Our consciousness enables us to embrace and know life as well as recognise that we will die and become mere matter on death.

Firstly, your tone is offensive, not to mention the vocabulary! Then, you are arrogant, as you leave no space for possibly misunderstanding Phil. Then, you are aggressive, as you arrogantly presume you understood correctly and there can be no misunderstanding, so you attack senselessly and mercilessly. None of these point to a good, open-minded outcome and a fruitful debate on the issues. May I ask you to ask questions first and shoot later? Elementary human decency and honesty, I would have thought, points us in that direction!

Secondly, I bet good money I don't have, Phil isn't saying that [your interpretation of his "musings"] at all!

From Hegel, which you obviously know nothing about, one knows that apart from Struggle and Labour, Death is one of the essential themes of his thought.

A Human Being, with all kinds of potential animals don't have [sadly, we're speaking only potentially (as not all of us get there; and of those who do, not all of us get there at the same time!)], lives in relation to his/her finite nature. I.e. one is aware of his/her limited, corporeal, vulnerable nature, and at the same time of the infinite nature of Human Spirit. In that tension between time-limited and timeless/infinite some decide to make something out of their lives and create all manner of things in the process, connecting with all the other Human Beings through the Absolute Spirit/Idea [you can also call it God, Reason and so forth].

What that realisation/"gnosis" does is to put one in a constant effort towards "becoming" - constantly "evolving/developing" in order to "defeat" one's limited corporeal nature and "leave something worthy behind". In that effort we have Beethovens and Napoleons, Aristotles and Paulings etc. etc. etc. of this world.

Heidegger, FYI, takes this theme [as Marx "only" took the themes of Labour and Struggle] and develops it further but not in a manner I'd agree with... It goes towards "meeting your maker", as it were, and then, having met your limited nature, towards "living densely", an "authentic existence", not allowing others to "steal your time easily" and so on... Sadly, I fear he missed a great deal of the essential potential Modernity brings and I think he fell to a "pre-Modern" level in his "musings" about ways to achieve this "victory over Death"!!!

Phil then says:

Originally Posted by phildwyer
Clearly it makes no evolutionary sense for a creature to develop a revulsion against itself.

And you respond:

I fail to see how a fear of death equates to revulsion against ourselves. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought

Revulsion might be interpreted differently, as I pointed out. The mere passage of time, that takes us along and dumps us by the wayside, might indeed bring about a "revulsion" of sorts and through it a great many achievements of individuals and teams/groups, to the benefit of Mankind!

Phil then says:

Originally Posted by phildwyer
And yet that is what human beings have done. I conclude from this that consciousness cannot possibly be the result of evolution.

You respond:

Is that really the essence of your argument? I'm staggered, tbh

Why? Mind/Soul/Spirit can indeed turn against "Matter" to the point of [Self] Annihilation. This can be understood as a potential to go "doo-lalley" and devastate either one's own life or a whole group of Humans [see, for instance, the Easter Islands or many an American Civilisation] or Humanity as such. We do have that potential. If Evolution is understood in a purposeful manner, then one can ask this question perfectly legitimately.

We can debate whether one can interpret it [Consciousness] in a neutral manner, as in "it can be 'used' in either direction"... However, that potential is there!

Originally Posted by phildwyer
And perhaps it will not go amiss to note that the likes of Jonti, who so obviously *need* to reduce the human soul to a function of matter, perfectly mirror the poverty and corruption of such a world-view in the vile pettiness and self-important, humorless bombast with which they conduct themselves in this forum.

Translation: "Jonti, I hate you, nerrrrr, you stink"

Well bloody done! One out of 4-5 is.... errrr... a pretty piss poor result! Sit down, you FAILED miserably!!!

 

[gorski]

So a child is not conscious until you teach it about death?

Seriously?

Much more than that: many remain children all their lives and hence never reach the level of [Self] Consciousness!!!

 

[gorski]

Originally Posted by phildwyer
Clearly it makes no evolutionary sense for a creature to develop a revulsion against itself. And yet that is what human beings have done. I conclude from this that consciousness cannot possibly be the result of evolution.

You could, by extension, also say that it makes no evolutionary sense for an animal not to bond with its offspring and nurture them into adulthood. This happens time and again in the animal world so would you argue that reproduction could not possibly be the result of evolutionary forces?

Nope, you could not!

A) This has nowt to do with the Animal Kingdom but with the Empire of Freedom, i.e. Humanity. Our world. The world of Spirit, in the sense explained above.

B) Reproduction, as such, happens in a myriad of ways, some of which have nothing to do with "bonding with their offspring" and yet those species still survive and appear "successful", even though they never know their offspring...

Non sequitur!!!

 

[Spion]

Blimey, you love Hegel nearly as much as you love Phil.

Meanwhile, you and 'the point' seem to have a rather frosty relationship.

I may get round to answering you in the next day or two. Or I may find better things to do.

Good evening

 

[goldenecitrone]

Nope, you could not!

A) This has nowt to do with the Animal Kingdom but with the Empire of Freedom, i.e. Humanity. Our world. The world of Spirit, in the sense explained above.

B) Reproduction, as such, happens in a myriad of ways, some of which have nothing to do with "bonding with their offspring" and yet those species still survive and appear "successful", even though they never know their offspring...

Non sequitur!!!

Fair enough. Have you read Hegel in German, by the way?

 

[gorski]

I wish, GC.

Spion, it's official: you're a bleedin' twat!

 

[Jonti]

... The philosophical debate really centres on the definition of consciousness - my definition would not be universally accepted.

There's a lot of talk on how to bridge the explanatory gap as well. You seem to be saying this is just a pattern of information processing; that when the right algorithms run (regardless of the physical substrate exercising the algorithm) consciousness would emerge. As does fruitloop ...

... causally all you need is computation and yet there is (perhaps) this added dimension of how it is for me to compute in that way, and that this seems like something which is in a way extraneous and yet I know to be true, because I'm experiencing it right now. The extra-ness is the most mysterious part of it, not a way of downplaying it or explaining it away.

I think it is at least possible that the physical and chemical activity that takes place in the nervous system may be relevant.

It is a massive assumption that 'causally all you need is the computation'. It is a category error, like saying that a calculation of Boyle's Law would involve real heat.

The extra-ness comes down to its meaning for the conscious body; to the semantic content of syntactical entities, and to the redness of red.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why? Mind/Soul/Spirit can indeed turn against "Matter" to the point of [Self] Annihilation. This can be understood as a potential to go "doo-lalley" and devastate either one's own life or a whole group of Humans [see, for instance, the Easter Islands or many an American Civilisation] or Humanity as such. We do have that potential. If Evolution is understood in a purposeful manner, then one can ask this question perfectly legitimately.

To understand evolution in a purposeful manner is illegitimate.

 

[gurrier]

It is a massive assumption that 'causally all you need is the computation'. It is a category error, like saying that a calculation of Boyle's Law would involve real heat.

The extra-ness comes down to its meaning for the conscious body; to the semantic content of syntactical entities, and to the redness of red.

It's really not an assumption at all - unless there is something unknown going on - which we assume not to be the case in the absence of evidence, then we really can model the brain as a computer programme (which is not just the algorithm, it's also inputs, outputs and data structures.

If we could emulate a brain as a programme, it would have its own appreciation of red - full of associations, memories and emotional richness.

 

[Spion]

Spion, it's official: you're a bleedin' twat!

A bleeding twat? You say it like it's a bad thing. Tut tut, Gorski

 

[gorski]

To understand evolution in a purposeful manner is illegitimate.

I know, I know... Hence "if"...

 

[gorski]

A bleeding twat? You say it like it's a bad thing. Tut tut, Gorski

Yeah, and you say it as if anti-intellectualism is a good thing... Almost something you can be proud of...

 

[Spion]

Yeah, and you say it as if anti-intellectualism is a good thing... Almost something you can be proud of...

Errr, I didn't and I wouldn't. So, where did I say that exactly?