[[link removed]]

SUNDAY SCIENCE: WHY CONSCIOUSNESS MAY HAVE EVOLVED TO BENEFIT SOCIETY
RATHER THAN INDIVIDUALS  
[[link removed]]


 

Peter W Halligan, Cardiff University and David A Oakley, UCL
July 10, 2024
The Conversation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Why did the experience of consciousness evolve from our underlying
brain physiology? Despite being a vibrant area of neuroscience,
current research on consciousness is characterized by disagreement and
controversy . . . _

, Shot4Sell/Shutterstock

 

Why did the experience of consciousness evolve from our underlying
brain physiology? Despite being a vibrant area of neuroscience,
current research on consciousness is characterised by disagreement
[[link removed]]
and controversy
[[link removed]]
– with several rival theories
[[link removed]] in contention.

A recent scoping review [[link removed]] of
over 1,000 articles identified over 20 different theoretical accounts.
Philosophers like David Chalmers argue that no single scientific
theory can truly explain consciousness
[[link removed]].

We define consciousness as embodied subjective awareness, including
self awareness. In a recent article
[[link removed]]
published in Interalia (which is not peer reviewed), we argue that one
reason for this predicament is the powerful role played by intuition.

We are not alone. Social scientist Jacy Reese Anthis
[[link removed]] writes
“much of the debate on the fundamental nature of consciousness takes
the form of intuition jousting, in which the different parties each
report their own strong intuitions and joust them against each
other”.

Dangers of intuition

Key intuitive beliefs – for example that our mental processes are
distinct from our physical bodies (mind-body dualism) and that our
mental processes give rise to and control our decisions and actions
(mental causation) – are supported by a lifetime of subjective
experiences.

These beliefs are found in all human cultures
[[link removed]]. They are
important as they serve as foundational beliefs for most liberal
democracies and criminal justice systems. They are resistant to
counter evidence. That’s because they are powerfully endorsed by
social and cultural concepts such as free will, human rights,
democracy, justice and moral responsibility. All these concepts assume
that consciousness plays a central controlling influence.

Intuition
[[link removed]],
however, is an automatic, cognitive process that evolved to provide
fast trusted explanations and predictions
[[link removed]].
In fact, it does so without the need for us to know how or why we know
it. The outcomes of intuition therefore shape how we perceive and
explain our everyday world without the need for extensive reflection
or formal analytic explanations.

While helpful and indeed crucial for many everyday activities
[[link removed]],
intuitive beliefs can be wrong
[[link removed]].
They can also interfere with scientific literacy
[[link removed]].

Intuitive accounts of consciousness ultimately put us in the
driver’s seat as “captain of our own ship”. We think we know
what consciousness is and what it does from simply experiencing it.
Mental thoughts, intentions and desires are seen as determining
[[link removed]]
and controlling our actions
[[link removed](or%20along%20both).].

The widespread acceptance of these tacit intuitive accounts helps
explain, in part, why the formal study of consciousness was relegated
to the margins of mainstream neuroscience until late 20th century
[[link removed]].

The problem for scientific models of consciousness remains
accommodating these intuitive accounts within a materialist framework
consistent with the findings of neuroscience. While there is no
current scientific explanation for how brain tissue generates or
maintains subjective experience, the consensus among (most)
neuroscientists is that it is a product of brain processes.

Social purpose

If that’s the case, why did consciousness, defined as subjective
awareness, evolve?

Consciousness presumably evolved as part of the evolution of the
nervous system. According to several theories
[[link removed]]
the key adaptive function (providing an organism with survival and
reproductive benefits) of consciousness is to make volitional movement
possible. And volition is something we ultimately associate with will,
agency and individuality. It is therefore easy to think that
consciousness evolved to benefit us as individuals.

[Cave dwellers gathered around a campfire]

Humans are a highly social species. Esteban De Armas/Shuttestock
[[link removed]]

But we have argued
[[link removed]]
that consciousness may have evolved to facilitate key social adaptive
functions. Rather than helping individuals survive, it evolved to help
us broadcast our experienced ideas and feelings into the wider world.
And this might benefit the survival and wellbeing of the wider
species.

The idea fits with new thinking on genetics. While evolutionary
science traditionally focuses on individual genes, there is growing
recognition that natural selection among humans operates at multiple
levels [[link removed]]. For example,
culture and society influence traits passed on between generations –
we value some more than others.

Central to our account is the idea that sociality (the tendency of
groups and individuals to develop social links and live in
communities) is a key survival strategy
[[link removed]] that influences
how the brain and cognition evolve.

Adopting this social evolutionary framework, we propose that
subjective awareness lacks any independent capacity to causally
influence [[link removed]]
other psychological processes or actions. An example would be
initiating a course of action. The idea that subjective awareness has
a social purpose has been described previously by other reserachers
[[link removed]].

The claim that subjective awareness is without causal influence,
however, is not to deny the reality of subjective experience
[[link removed]]
or claim that the experience is an illusion.

While our model removes subjective awareness from the traditional
driving seat of the mind, it does not imply that we don’t value
private internal experiences. Indeed, it is precisely because of the
value we place on these experiences that intuitive accounts remain
compelling and widespread in social and legal organisation systems and
psychology.

While it is counter-intuitive to attribute agency and personal
accountability to a biological assembly of nerve cells, it makes sense
that highly valued social constructs such as free will, truth, honesty
and fairness can be meaningfully attributed to individuals as
accountable people in a social community.

Think about it. While we are deeply rooted in our biological nature,
our social nature is largely defined by our roles and interactions in
society. As such, the mental architecture of the mind should be
strongly adapted for
[[link removed]]
the exchange and reception of information, ideas and feelings.
Consequently, while brains as biological organs are incapable of
responsibility and agency, legal and social traditions have long held
individuals accountable for their behaviour.

Key to achieving a more scientific explanation of subjective awareness
requires accepting that biology and culture work collectively to shape
how brains evolve [[link removed]].
Subjective awareness comprises only one part of the brain’s much
larger mental architecture designed to facilitate species survival and
wellbeing.[The Conversation]

Peter W Halligan
[[link removed]], Hon
Professor of Neuropsychology, _Cardiff University
[[link removed]]_
and David A Oakley
[[link removed]], Emeritus
Professor of Psychology, _UCL
[[link removed]]_

This article is republished from The Conversation
[[link removed]] under a Creative Commons license. Read
the original article
[[link removed]].

Want to understand the world?

The Conversation has editions around the globe, from Europe to Africa
to Australia. Twice a week you can read a selection of fascinating
articles in a newsletter my colleagues and I curate to showcase some
of the best of the international network. You'll find different
perspectives on news events and research that is shaping the world we
live in. You'll discover analytical reports and podcasts exploring
themes that other parts of the US media often miss. If you want to
understand the wider world, then this is one newsletter to subscribe
to.

Subscribe today
[[link removed]]

Our Last Common Ancestor Lived 4.2 Billion Years Ago—Perhaps
Hundreds of Millions of Years Earlier than Thought
[[link removed]]
Robert F. Service
Science Magazine
Genomes of diverse microbes point to early evolution of a rudimentary
immune system
July 12, 2024

* Science
[[link removed]]
* biology
[[link removed]]
* Evolution
[[link removed]]
* Brain
[[link removed]]
* consciousness
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]