Defn: Consciousness: The state of being aware of oneself, one’s thoughts, sensations, and the environment, encompassing subjective experience and responsiveness to stimuli.
The above is a definition of the state of human consciousness. Do you find it satisfactory, or is it lacking in some respect?
Consciousness is a funny old thing. We know it exists, as we all have our own personal account. But how does it materialise from a mass of interconnected neural tissue secreted within a bone box conveniently positioned atop our spine? Consciousness has puzzled thinking folk for millennia. It is a notoriously difficult concept to grasp in any meaningful, objective way, as it is always experienced subjectively.
In May 2024, I wrote a piece on personal consciousness and outlined its conceptual peculiarity. Great thinkers have grappled with the difficult problem of how a mass of neural tissue in our heads produces the subjective experience we call consciousness. Is it possible that the sum of electrical activity coursing through our bonce somehow manufactures a consciousness that remains firmly within the wet mass of tissue? Or, could it be that once the clump of neural interconnectivity reaches a critical threshold, a 'switch' is thrown and first-person circumspection jolts into subjective existence and remains additional and separate from the physical brain? Poof, a type of reality is conjured that lies outside the brain's multiform activity. Could consciousness somehow be an intangible extra, an artifact of neural electrical transmission? The first theory is a favourite among scientists with a reductionist mindset. The second theory is beloved by philosophers who favour separating the physical brain from consciousness itself. However, they cannot deny that the brain is the source of the process, or can they? Theories of consciousness lie on a spectrum of thought/experimentation: on one end we have the empirical reductionists, hard-headed scientists and neurosurgeons, for the most part. At the other extreme are those who seriously consider that consciousness is primary, formative, and universal. Consciousness brings into existence what we call the Universe and all that resides within; heady stuff indeed. However, tis a concept and train of thought that should be kept from those of a feeble-minded disposition, lest it cause more confusion than enlightenment to an intellect already befuddled. The inevitable result compounds and congeals into a soggy mass of brain gloop, leaving the lone 'observer' prone to a mental condition known as Fuckedus Wittedus Extremus. Am I starting to show any bias toward the end of the spectrum of thought I think is plausible? Let's wait and see.
As is becoming clear (really?), consciousness is not so easily corralled. In the past, pontification on the subject was the preserve of the Gentleman Philosopher. Science somehow grew as the bastard offspring of philosophy sometime in the 17th century. It is perhaps conceivable that the birth was premature, as there were thinkers in the 16th century of supreme intellectual merit who applied the rigours of the scientific method, albeit haltingly. Anyway, we can conclude that the birth was overly long and messy, and the subsequent separation into two distinct and diverse disciplines was akin to child Science growing up with less and less contact with the parent discipline as young Science gained in maturity and intellectual confidence.
Blimey, I'm well into the post without a hint of anything pertaining to the title. A tad of introductory material was deemed necessary to set the scene before delving into evolutionary material as it relates to the production of self-awareness. Going in now, folks. Hold onto your hats. It wouldn't do for them to fly off into uncharted territories (surely, a good thing?). Or for the gust of intellectual speculation to become too unruly and fumble the hat headfirst into shade, hinter realms of the absurd.
Perhaps, because of inner and constant familiarity, consciousness is not deemed particularly special to most; just another ability we all possess. But consciousness is a rather singular quality in a universe that is overwhelmingly uncomprehending and uncomprehended; think about it. Even on verdant Earth, where life abounds in species still uncounted, most of what we call life exists without a neural network, surely an essential precursor to consciousness. Oddly enough, not all researchers agree. The most successful group of life on the planet, bacteria, judged by total species numbers and biomass, lacks inner contemplation. Plants, trees, algae, and many other important living organisms lack an organ capable of cognition. These abundant species without specialised neural tissue seem to be doing quite well in the game of life. So the first question to ask is: why did the apparatus necessary for the formation of consciousness evolve at all? Evolutionary processes are essentially parsimonious; consequently, one could argue that personal cognition confers evolutionary benefits. Hold on a sec. Consider this: what if brain development confers attributes other than consciousness, and those attributes are beneficial and consciousness just comes along for the ride? In this scenario, consciousness is a side effect of brain development and not considered the primary evolutionary driver. Or am I deviating too far here from a rational viewpoint?
When did the collection of neural tissue first bring forth a primitive glimmer of self-awareness in our distant ancestor? Was there such an entity/species which we can confidently state had a degree, or partook, of a primitive expression of what we would recognise as consciousness? Of more importance, how on earth could we determine whether some long dead organism, probably extinct, participates in the neural quality of consciousness?
Evolution, ably assisted and abetted by the blind, remorseless force of natural selection, is a harsh mother for species change. The mechanism is vastly wasteful, often inefficient, and cruel. Ninety-nine per cent of all species that have existed have now gone extinct. Few are spared in a pitiless, relentless passage of eons of adaptive change. Therefore, a contemplative evolutionary 'lifestyle' with the ability to inwardly reflect and process (I'm running out of synonyms for consciousness) is not a quality given to all evolving organisms/species. Whether the route to consciousness, as a favoured adaptive process and product, drives the evolution of neural function, or is a derivative, secondary consequence, it behooves the serious observer to tease out and untangle this web of mystery, if indeed it lies within the wit of man.
Another important question relates to our animal cousins. I think we can all agree that primates share consciousness; so do dolphins and other whale species. The strange and wonderful octopus has been shown to have a highly developed series of brains, and it exhibits abilities that suggest a high level of cognitive function. Anyone who has owned a dog will no doubt have no problem with the fact that the hound on my lap, gently farting, partakes of this quality we call 'Consciousness.' But when we descend down the family tree, where does conscious introspection end? How do we determine, and when, whether a conscious element drives a species' behaviour, or are we seeing the relentless drive of instinct?
Another problem is easy to state but virtually impossible to resolve. Consider a situation where evolution has crafted an organism's brain with the facsimile of personal consciousness. Imagine a highly developed creature with the semblance of active, high intelligence. Said organism reacts and appears to process and be aware of its own intellect and the intellect of others of its species. However, the brain is so contrived that no spark of awareness lies behind the bright, sparkling eyes. We are looking at a true zombie, and evolution has perfected its performance. So the critical question we are forced to contemplate is: how could we determine whether the creature is not a highly plausible zombie, a creature with the behavioural characteristics, responsiveness to environmental cues, and analytical acumen that is consistent with the mysterious gift we call consciousness? And yet we are faced with a creature with no more subjective awareness than a baked sausage roll. This is not something new, and philosophers old and new have debated that, from our personal subjective (unnecessary redundancy) perspective, we can never be certain whether our interactions with others invite the horror show that we alone are blessed with the ability to contemplate this possibility and that everyone else is a baked sausage roll.
This so-called introductory post concerning the Evolution of Consciousness has prattled on longer than I first intended. 'Woe to the Reader'. The second post on this topic will address the questions raised in this post. 'Woe to the Author.'
