Did evolution create consciousness?

[unworthyone]

I've read some rather LARGE articles about how our "state of mind" rose up from evolution etc...

The thing is they all point to assumption. Is there any evidence for this ever happening? (Besides the fact that we are all conscious)

If there is evidence how did they get it?

And if not, how to they plan on obtaining it?

Or is this even something that the theory of evolution cares about? Do they claim ignorance on it?

 

[brt28006]

I think pretty much all evolutionists believe conscious thought to be an evolved trait... like a step up from the concept of personal identity.

But we don't know how many animals are conscious thinkers, and it's probably fairly naive to think humans are the only ones.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by brt28006
I think pretty much all evolutionists believe conscious thought to be an evolved trait... like a step up from the concept of personal identity.

Thats what I've read too, but where is the evidence it evolved?

 

[mac_philo]

'Where is the evidence it evolved.' Well, remember, for scientists, everything evolved. So you are already holding these texts to an improper standard. If you want to read about someone 'seeing' consciousness evolve, you aren't going to be satisfied.

You've never taken any of my recommendations seriously, (as you said, 'i don't need to read the books. chance is all they say. that's not good enough."), but here we go again.

The best book on the science of consciousness is Daniel Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained.'

One specific proposal for how consciousness arose is 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.'

You need to realize that it has only been in the last ten years or so that neuroscientists have even begun to grasp even the most basic physiological correlates of consciousness. Consciousness is still almost uncharted territory when it comes to having a comprehensive physical theory. There's a research explosion going on now--if you want to read some hard science, look for the issue of Cognition that came out this year on the topic.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by mac_philo
'Where is the evidence it evolved.' Well, remember, for scientists, everything evolved. So you are already holding these texts to an improper standard. If you want to read about someone 'seeing' consciousness evolve, you aren't going to be satisfied.

Are you?

You've never taken any of my recommendations seriously, (as you said, 'i don't need to read the books. chance is all they say. that's not good enough.&quot, but here we go again.

The best book on the science of consciousness is Daniel Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained.'

One specific proposal for how consciousness arose is 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.'

Actually I find these kind of books a lot more interesting so I may definately take a gander at them. Thanks Mac.

 

[brt28006]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Are you?

Evolution (macro or micro) by its very nature cannot be observed firsthand.
Nor can a psychological process.

 

[Gooch's dad]

Of course evolution can and has been observed, both micro and macro.

The example of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics isn't 'just adaptation', it is new information in the genome.

And numerous speciation events have been observed, too. That pretty much fits the definition of macro-evolution. QED.

 

[Shane Roach]

Why do people not talk about this, instead of refering people to a book? We are all grownups here, and need not rely on someone else to write a book to tell us what to think.

And Gooch's Dad, I think the part people are talking about not being experimetnally verifiable is the part that is supposed to have happened in the past. And it is also not a given, at least to my mind, that all the forces of nature necessarily work to a proliferation of speciation. So far it seems we lose them faster than we get them.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by unworthyone
I've read some rather LARGE articles about how our "state of mind" rose up from evolution etc...

The thing is they all point to assumption. Is there any evidence for this ever happening? (Besides the fact that we are all conscious)

If there is evidence how did they get it?

And if not, how to they plan on obtaining it?

Or is this even something that the theory of evolution cares about? Do they claim ignorance on it?

A bit of each. Science has yet to come up with a good formal definition of what "consciousness" is. By any meaningful standard, humans aren't conscious when they're born; it takes a while for the "mind" to form.

Mostly, though, the argument goes like this: We have good evidence for a theory that says that new traits can be developed, over time. We know that complicated brains can be an advantage, and there's some evidence that sufficiently complicated brains become conscious.

At that point, the most consistent thing is to assume that consciousness evolved, same as eyeballs, digestive tracts, bone structure, and live birth.

However, the question isn't very important, scientifically; we all know that, whether or not we can ever measure consciousness, that we all think *we* have it, so it doesn't come up much.

My experience is that some animals have something that I would call "consciousness". For instance, about half the cats I've met are categorically different from other cats, and show signs of an "us and them" model, while the other cats simply interact with a large and complicated world, with no such category.

 

[Tripping Further]

I have always defined conscienceness as a state of mind where a being is aware of its existance and mortality. Under this definition it is plain to see (from an extremely general point of view) how conscienceness was able to form in humans, and possibly some other animals. Obviously, if through some complex series of mutations an organism becomes aware of its own mortality it would have a fear of death, or at least realize the possibility of its own demise, which would in turn create a stronger will to survive and cause the organism to put more thought into the possible reprecussions of reckless actions, making it better fit for natural selection than the rest of its species without the conscienceness mutation.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Tripping Further
I have always defined conscienceness as a state of mind where a being is aware of its existance and mortality. Under this definition it is plain to see (from an extremely general point of view) how conscienceness was able to form in humans, and possibly some other animals. Obviously, if through some complex series of mutations an organism becomes aware of its own mortality it would have a fear of death, or at least realize the possibility of its own demise, which would in turn create a stronger will to survive and cause the organism to put more thought into the possible reprecussions of reckless actions, making it better fit for natural selection than the rest of its species without the conscienceness mutation.

I seriously doubt this. The only reason people are afraid to die is because they don't know what happens afterwards. If there was no God to tell them, or any "afterlife" known, they wouldn't have cared less.

 

[Tripping Further]

Originally posted by unworthyone


The only reason people are afraid to die is because they don't know what happens afterwards. If there was no God to tell them, or any "afterlife" known, they wouldn't have cared less.

Neither of these statements are true. 1) Would someone be afraid to die if they were certain they would perish in flame? 2) I do not believe that there is a God, or an afterlife, and I'm extremely scared of death. Self preservation is my #1 concern, which makes me living proof that some people WOULD have cared less.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Tripping Further
Neither of these statements are true. 1) Would someone be afraid to die if they were certain they would perish in flame? 2) I do not believe that there is a God, or an afterlife, and I'm extremely scared of death. Self preservation is my #1 concern, which makes me living proof that some people WOULD have cared less.

Why are you scared? If there is no God and there is no hell, what do you have to be afraid of?

 

[Tripping Further]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Why are you scared? If there is no God there is no hell so what do you have to be afraid of?

The unknown, which is the same thing that nearly everyone in the world is afraid of. Every religion in the history of man has been created out of a fear of the unknown to explain the unexplainable and know the unknown, so weather you hide behind the mask of religion or openly admit to fear, conscienceness creates the fear of death, and a greater appreciation and love of life.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Tripping Further
The unknown, which is the same thing that nearly everyone in the world is afraid of. Every religion in the history of man has been created out of a fear of the unknown to explain the unexplainable and know the unknown, so weather you hide behind the mask of religion or openly admit to fear, conscienceness creates the fear of death, and a greater appreciation and love of life.

So has religion caused your fear? And if so, are you trying to find the right religion, or do you choose to just wait it out, in hopes that nothing happens?

Could religion be right?

 

[brt28006]

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
Of course evolution can and has been observed, both micro and macro.

The example of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics isn't 'just adaptation', it is new information in the genome.

Observed, yes.
Observed directly, no.

We have no time lapse video tape from six million years ago showing Dryopithecus (or whatever) turning into Ardipithicus ramidus and learning to walk bipedally.

And numerous speciation events have been observed, too. That pretty much fits the definition of macro-evolution. QED.

I'm aware of the Woods Hole experiment where speciation was observed.
It was not a "visible" observation, however; and could only be verified when it was found the two groups could no longer interbreed.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by unworthyone


I seriously doubt this. The only reason people are afraid to die is because they don't know what happens afterwards. If there was no God to tell them, or any "afterlife" known, they wouldn't have cared less.

This seems unlikely. Apart from anything else, I'm afraid to die because I have stuff left to do, and it sounds painful, and I want to raise kids.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by seebs


This seems unlikely. Apart from anything else, I'm afraid to die because I have stuff left to do, and it sounds painful, and I want to raise kids.

Ok scratch what you just said:

Imagine no pain, 70 years of kids, and finished all you wished to accomplished...still fearing death?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Ok scratch what you just said:

Imagine no pain, 70 years of kids, and finished all you wished to accomplished...still fearing death?

Quite possibly. I just don't think that fear of death depends on religion. Anyway, how could you ever accomplish everything you wish? If I never had a new idea in my life, and just sat here typing, I'd die of old age before I was done writing down the things I've already thought of.

 

[auswiq]

Originally posted by unworthyone
I've read some rather LARGE articles about how our "state of mind" rose up from evolution etc...

Consciousness - L. cum sciere - to know together with. (Dict. of etymology)

Do the currently known fundamental constituents of matter, of which our body/brain are essentially constituted, possess this attribute? Assuming that the former are 'blind' sub-atomic wave-functions, particles or whatever, then I'd be curious to know from whence consciousness has its genesis. With what do we ' know together '?