Evolution: Is there any survival value for human consciousness?

[Mark6]

I'm sure you can imagine many things, but can you provide any scientific evidence that consciousness enhances the chances of survival?

In certain situations consciousness decreases chances of survival. Conscious reaction is always slower than subconscious. A modern soldier in the middle of a firefight, or a caveman attacked by a tiger, will die if he fully aware of the situation. His survival depends on using his training without actually thinking about it.

Less extreme example -- any pianist will tell you that if you have to think which keys to press, you have not learned to play piano yet. Eventually process of playing piano gets burned into muscle memory, and one can play without being conscious of it. Only then he is really good at it.

Granted, the process of training -- whether to fight or to play piano, -- has to be conscious. For humans. I am not at all convinced it's a necessity for other species.

As for planning... a number of scientific breakthroughs came to their authors in their sleep. Once or twice I woke up with a new idea how to do some software project. I am sure more mundane planning sometimes occurs without self-awareness.

 

[Vorpal]

As for planning... a number of scientific breakthroughs came to their authors in their sleep. Once or twice I woke up with a new idea how to do some software project. I am sure more mundane planning sometimes occurs without self-awareness.

It's not the case that planning in general (or intelligence in general) requires it. But with self-awareness, you're explicitly evaluating the consequences of actions and plans for you. It does not mean that this kind of thing can't happen subconsciously, just that self-awareness directly improves an evolutionarily important intellectual ability for the agent.

Although now that I've read Lowpro's post, I think his answer is even more important. The ability to model the behavior of others, to "put oneself in another's shoes" so to speak, seems essential for complex social interactions. It may be that self-awareness is just the same mechanism applied to oneself.

 

[Mister Scoville]

Interesting discussion. Peter Watts explored the value of consciousness in 'Blindsight'. Fiction, but still interesting. He posits that humanity is the only conscious lifeform and that its value is counterproductive. He has intelligent, but non-conscious aliens as a first-contact threat. The online version of the novel has extensive footnotes and one of them discusses consciousness at a bit more length.

 

[Perpetual Student]

How isn't it conscious? The question becomes what differentiates consciousness from just "awareness". Do you need to be self aware to be conscious? I don't know, but I don't think it's a requirement. Could something be conscious if it has no memory? If a human loses all ability to retain memory, but still takes in stimuli is he/she still conscious?

There is no scientific evidence that bees are conscious. In fact there is reason to believe that bees are biological machines with rudimentary intelligence but no consciousness. Do you think bees think in any way remotely resembling human thought? I'm not sure what distinction you are making between consciousness and self awareness; I use these two terms synonymously.

 

[SezMe]

An assumption that seems to be being made here is that consciousness is a black-or-white thing. One either has it or does not.

I would suggest that like so many other things in nature, it occurs on a sliding scale. Humans are at one end of the spectrum, amoeba at the other. Apes are closer to us while a dandelion is closer to the other end.

 

[Lowpro]

There is no scientific evidence that bees are conscious. In fact there is reason to believe that bees are biological machines with rudimentary intelligence but no consciousness. Do you think bees think in any way remotely resembling human thought? I'm not sure what distinction you are making between consciousness and self awareness; I use these two terms synonymously.

Oh I wasn't quite sure we were ready to equate human experience of consciousness as being what consciousness is; I thought a more neuroscientific approach might have been more apt.

Anyways I don't think it's accurate to equate consciousness with self awareness. Being aware of the self be superficial or introspective, depending on how you decide to measure it. Consciousness is the two hemispheres of your brain summating stimuli. It requires manipulating your own attention (the point being that something may be self aware, and not have the attention to be introspective, but they are still conscious)

That leads to question of memory's role in consciousness; can you literally have no ability to create memory and yet be conscious? I would say, yes. Can you have no memory and be self aware? I wouldn't think so.

Now, I have to make them separate because the literature I've read never bothers to equate the two. Again if you read Christof Koch's The Quest for Consciousness, awareness is good for consciousness, self awareness is almost uninterestingly useless.

Christof Koch also weighs in in the survival value of consciousness. He says consciousness, far being from just a collection of "zombie agents" working in tandem, functions as a general purpose and deliberate processing mode for planning and contemplating a future course of action. Without consciousness, you would be worse off.

He also says that conclusions on the workings of the brain and consciousness would probably be premature since neuroscience is a young discipline, but it is not beyond human comprehension.

NCC

 

[Wowbagger]

There is a book that attempts to answer the evolutionary heritage and survival advantage of consciousness, called Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain, by Antonio Damasio. I have NOT read it, yet. But, I will start it within the week, (as soon as I am done with my re-read of Sam Harris' Moral Landscape).

I think he argues that much of the survival advantage comes from recognition of consciousness in others, which facilitates the social nature of the species.

He also argues for differing (more primitive) levels of consciousness in other species, and how it aids in their survival.


My own view has been that consciousness aids in producing innovative solutions to novel problems, as they arise. But, I could change my mind, after reading this book. We'll see. (But, these are not mutually exclusive ideas. Both of us could be right.)

I spell out my reasoning with the conjecture found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212683

 

[Cheetah]

I think you also need to factor in that, due to our evolving a large brain with limited pre-programming

This is so wrong, we have an enormous amount of pre-programming and a lot of evidence for it, start by reading some Pinker, it really is very good.

So far as I'm aware, I do all my thinking in words.

When I'm thinking of communicating my ideas to someone else, or telling a story in my head I think in narrative, but when I'm solving problems, say building something, or planning a route to somewhere, or trying to fit all this darn luggage into my small car's boot etc. no words are involved.

I'm sure you can imagine many things, but can you provide any scientific evidence that consciousness enhances the chances of survival?

You don't think there is a survival advantage in being able to predict another animals response/intentions towards you? That's just weird, but I suppose it depends what you mean by 'consciousness', I don't think it has been cleared up yet.

An assumption that seems to be being made here is that consciousness is a black-or-white thing. One either has it or does not.
I would suggest that like so many other things in nature, it occurs on a sliding scale.

I fully agree, asking what the value of human consciousness is, seems to me equivalent to asking what the value of elephant strength is.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This is so wrong, we have an enormous amount of pre-programming and a lot of evidence for it, start by reading some Pinker, it really is very good.

We have a certain amount of pre-learning, but not much compared to most other animals. How much of what you know is pre-learned; how much of it would you know if you had grown up without contact to other humans?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I wonder how self-aware someone is who completely lacks language.

So far as I'm aware, I do all my thinking in words.
Before I learned language , I have no idea how I thought, if I did at all.
I'm sitting here trying to think without using words and failing totally.


To what extent is self awareness just a result of using language?

I think neither is a result of the other. They are two sides of the same coin, in humans. I cannot say if a self-aware creature without language can exist, but we have used our intelligence for learning and teaching, and that implies language. I suggest our intelligence, self awareness, and language capability evolved together.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

When I'm thinking of communicating my ideas to someone else, or telling a story in my head I think in narrative, but when I'm solving problems, say building something, or planning a route to somewhere, or trying to fit all this darn luggage into my small car's boot etc. no words are involved.

Agreed.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

In certain situations consciousness decreases chances of survival. Conscious reaction is always slower than subconscious. A modern soldier in the middle of a firefight, or a caveman attacked by a tiger, will die if he fully aware of the situation. His survival depends on using his training without actually thinking about it.

But exactly that shows the survival value of consciousness: We can predict the skills we may need and decide to train for them. We don't have to rely on, and wait for, the haphazard mechanisms of evolution to create someone with the skill. That is what has enabled man to spread over the planet and survive in the most different environments. We can think: "This did not go too well. What must I do better next time?"

Hans

 

[SezMe]

We have a certain amount of pre-learning, but not much compared to most other animals. How much of what you know is pre-learned; how much of it would you know if you had grown up without contact to other humans?

Nearly everything. We "know" from the get go how to make our alimentary canal work, how to fight disease, how to maintain our blood chemistry at proper levels, how to react to pain, how to maintain body temperature, and so on. Sure, this "knowledge" may not exist at the conscience level but it is knowledge nonetheless. And we share it with most other animals ... and plants, at the most basic level.

 

[Cheetah]

We have a certain amount of pre-learning, but not much compared to most other animals. How much of what you know is pre-learned; how much of it would you know if you had grown up without contact to other humans?

There is of course a learned and a pre-programmed component to almost everything. Take our ability to parse language, that is pre-programmed although the language itself is learned. Most animals don't have that ability, or very little of it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Nearly everything. We "know" from the get go how to make our alimentary canal work, how to fight disease, how to maintain our blood chemistry at proper levels, how to react to pain, how to maintain body temperature, and so on. Sure, this "knowledge" may not exist at the conscience level but it is knowledge nonetheless. And we share it with most other animals ... and plants, at the most basic level.

So how far into physical functions do you want to go, and still call it 'knowledge'? Metabolism? Thermodynamics? (We 'know' how evaporation of sweat cools our body?)

Anyhow, do we disagree that human life and survival is heavily dominated by learned skills and knowledge?

Hans

 

[Cheetah]

Anyhow, do we disagree that human life and survival is heavily dominated by learned skills and knowledge?

I think you misunderstand, no-one is disputing that learned skills and knowledge are not extremely important, it is just that your ability to pick-up, and make use of, those learned skills and knowledge is pre-programmed.

 

[SezMe]

Anyhow, do we disagree that human life and survival is heavily dominated by learned skills and knowledge?

No.

But we may disagree on the term knowledge.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No.

But we may disagree on the term knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think you misunderstand, no-one is disputing that learned skills and knowledge are not extremely important, it is just that your ability to pick-up, and make use of, those learned skills and knowledge is pre-programmed.

But those abilities are not knowledge.

Hans

 

[Cheetah]

But those abilities are not knowledge.

From your wiki link:
"It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); and it can be more or less formal or systematic."

Don't you think the extremely rapid way that small kids pick up language and vocabulary could be seen as a skill.
Or the almost 'supernatural' way in which people read each other, for example to see if they are being deceived, often without even knowing how, or even, that they are doing it.
How about recognizing faces and facial expressions, we are so good at it we even see faces where there aren't any, where does that knowledge of faces come from?