Evolution: Is there any survival value for human consciousness?

Perpetual Student said:
Yes, what about it?
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on the NCC? That consciousness IS indeed describable as the tandem events of the NCC and in that consciousness is only defined by the awareness given by the NCC.

I think it's important to separate the actual neural correlates of consciousness from what we consider to be human intelligence; that consciousness isn't a matter of our ability to communicate, rather that the ability to communicate is just another addition to the whole mishmash of awareness that culminates to our consciousness. It's not required, but it's a part of it because consciousness = whatever awareness your faculties give you, that includes intelligence too.

Thus the NCC.
 
Lowpro said:
What are your thoughts on the NCC? That consciousness IS indeed describable as the tandem events of the NCC and in that consciousness is only defined by the awareness given by the NCC.

I think it's important to separate the actual neural correlates of consciousness from what we consider to be human intelligence; that consciousness isn't a matter of our ability to communicate, rather that the ability to communicate is just another addition to the whole mishmash of awareness that culminates to our consciousness. It's not required, but it's a part of it because consciousness = whatever awareness your faculties give you, that includes intelligence too.

Thus the NCC.
Click to expand...
I agree that "... it's important to separate the actual neural correlates of consciousness from what we consider to be human intelligence..."
I think you will agree that there's no surprise that there is a neural basis for consciousness -- what else would we have expected? The quest for the smallest set of neural events associated with conscious events might be productive in gaining further insight, however:
Wikipedia: "Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain why particular systems experience anything at all, why they are associated with consciousness and why other systems of equal complexity are not, but understanding the NCC is a step toward such a theory."
Click to expand...
I seems to me that consciousness is such a personal and totally subjective experience that it will always defy attempts to understand it. It is the only facet of human experience that (at weak moments) can put a fleeting dent in my rejection of magical thinking.
We do know that there is no consciousness without a brain, and we have some insight into areas of brain activity associated with mental states, but as the wikipedia article indicates, we have a long way to go.
What do you think of theories linking consciousness to language?
 
Last edited:
No, I can't see any survival value of consciousness. A machine could survive just as well... there is nothing extra conferred by consciousness.

EDIT: Not exactly sure about this now that I think about it...
 
I seems to me that consciousness is such a personal and totally subjective experience that it will always defy attempts to understand it. It is the only facet of human experience that (at weak moments) can put a fleeting dent in my rejection of magical thinking.
Click to expand...

You give up too easily then Perpetual =(

But I don't even see why it puts a dent in your rejection of magical thinking unless you think there's something magical about the brain (not understood =! magical)

We do know that there is no consciousness without a brain, and we have some insight into areas of brain activity associated with mental states, but as the wikipedia article indicates, we have a long way to go.
Click to expand...

True but more importantly we've been guided enough to know what DOESN'T work as far as viable theories of consciousness as well. Not all theories will have equal viability, and the NCC is concrete proof that new theories can use to give them viability.

I wouldn't be surprised if we confirm the hypothesis that the phenomena of consciousness doesn't require any drastic faculties. What's interesting is the amount of production we, us humans, seem to get out of consciousness.

What do you think of theories linking consciousness to language?
Click to expand...

I suspect that language, specifically biological faculties to support and evolve complex language association, came after or alongside other faculties that gave awareness to social interaction (ie language evolved after a social evolution for homonids)

I think there is no real link; perhaps social awareness (social "consciousness") preceded language and language became selected for as a result.

Those are my suspicions anyways.
 
FYI, you can download Blindsight by Peter Watts, a pretty good Sci-Fi story regarding consciousness, or the lack thereof, in intelligent species. This was a Hugo nominee, BTW.

He's put all his stories for free download by eReader, though you may have to go through eReader app Aldiko to get at it, IIRC.
 
What do you think of passing the 'mirror test' as a indication of self-awareness/consciousness? Babies apparently fail until about 18 months.
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
What do you think of passing the 'mirror test' as a indication of self-awareness/consciousness? Babies apparently fail until about 18 months.
Click to expand...
I don't know. How can one be certain that observed reactions to an image in a mirror indicates consciousness? Some non-human species are reported to pass the mirror test and there is no convincing evidence (since they do not talk) that they are conscious.
 
Perpetual Student said:
I don't know. How can one be certain that observed reactions to an image in a mirror indicates consciousness? Some non-human species are reported to pass the mirror test and there is no convincing evidence (since they do not talk) that they are conscious.
Click to expand...

Well that just makes it sounds like you say consciousness is a determined effort to communicate degree of consciousness (Whether you find consciousness to be a matter of degree I leave up to you to qualify; I mostly use the word "degree" because I can't think of a better one)

I disagree with that =\
 
Perpetual Student said:
I don't know. How can one be certain...
Click to expand...

How can one be certain of anything? (rhetorical question ;))

Let me rephrase that, don't you think recognizing yourself in a mirror and being able to act on that, has anything to say about what's going on in your mind, or whether you are self aware (to some degree at least)? The reason tests like these were devised were precisely because we can't ask the subject direct questions and get clear answers.
The general scientific consensus seems to be that passing the mirror test is definite proof of self awareness and even failing it does not mean that the subject is not self aware.
That book you are reading seems to have made an impression on you and not in a good way.:D
What do you think about symbolic thought in pigeons?
 
Perpetual Student said:
I don't know. How can one be certain that observed reactions to an image in a mirror indicates consciousness? Some non-human species are reported to pass the mirror test and there is no convincing evidence (since they do not talk) that they are conscious.
Click to expand...

Well, if for no other reason then it is because that is one way we define and detect consciousness.

If you can pass the mirror test, then you are, per definition, conscious, human or not.

Note that human infants, below about two years, normally do not pass the mirror test. Whether this means that they are not self-aware is debatable.

Hans
 
Cheetah said:
How can one be certain of anything? (rhetorical question ;))

Let me rephrase that, don't you think recognizing yourself in a mirror and being able to act on that, has anything to say about what's going on in your mind, or whether you are self aware (to some degree at least)? The reason tests like these were devised were precisely because we can't ask the subject direct questions and get clear answers.
The general scientific consensus seems to be that passing the mirror test is definite proof of self awareness and even failing it does not mean that the subject is not self aware.
That book you are reading seems to have made an impression on you and not in a good way.:D
What do you think about symbolic thought in pigeons?
Click to expand...

I question that consensus regarding the mirror test, which I believe to be nothing more than anthropomorphizing the behavior of non-human species. I don't think pigeons have symbolic thought; what they do have is learned behavior and non-linguistic communication.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, if for no other reason then it is because that is one way we define and detect consciousness.

If you can pass the mirror test, then you are, per definition, conscious, human or not.

Note that human infants, below about two years, normally do not pass the mirror test. Whether this means that they are not self-aware is debatable.

Hans
Click to expand...

See my comment above. It seems to me that consciousness, language and memory are inextricably linked and co-evolved in humans with a great deal of feedback and mutual reinforcement. Without that linkage, in my opinion, no other species has consciousness or self awareness. Dogs, for example, have been highly selected because of their anthropomorphic behavior, which imitates behavior that we mistake as conscious.
 
Perpetual Student said:
I question that consensus regarding the mirror test, which I believe to be nothing more than anthropomorphizing the behavior of non-human species. I don't think pigeons have symbolic thought; what they do have is learned behavior and non-linguistic communication.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree but it matters on how you evaluate consciousness. The mirror test measures recognition of correlation between the object's movements and the subjects.
 
Pigeons can only "pass" the test when trained to do so, as can several animals. Some corvids, on the other hand, frequently pass without training (and display other remarkable behaviors such as modifying tools, using tools in sequence, bait-fishing, exploiting human environments, etc).
 
Stomatopoda said:
Pigeons can only "pass" the test when trained to do so, as can several animals. Some corvids, on the other hand, frequently pass without training (and display other remarkable behaviors such as modifying tools, using tools in sequence, bait-fishing, exploiting human environments, etc).
Click to expand...

Corvids are also VERY social birds. Most (probably all) corvids also have long term memory that exceeds human memory capacity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom