Chapter 11: The function of consciousness

Evolutionary theory answers the ‘why’ questions in life. ‘Why do birds have wings?’ So they can fly. Then you can ask, why are we conscious? 

How did the evolution of consciousness go?

Nikolas Humphrey thought we developed consciousness because it gave us a selective advantage. However, the link between consciousness and evolution is not that simple. The history of evolutionary psychology contains multiple scientists with different beliefs about its origin. 

Charles Darwin wrote evolutionary psychology (E.P.) would settle as a respected field in biology. Nevertheless, Williams argued that the human mind couldn’t be defined solely by the mutations of genes. This opposition introduced ‘sociobiology’, a field which has been ridiculed repeatedly. Sociobiology has similarities well as as differences with evolutionary psychology, listed in the table below: 

The problem with the ‘adaption’ theory, according the evolutionary psychologists is that we have a different origin (first humans in Africa) which we have to take into account when judging these adaptions (sugar for hunter-gatherers even though it causes obesity now, food cravings by pregnant women even though we are well-fed now). Steven Pinker debated that we also developed certain tastes and traits, because it made us more desirable to produce offspring.  

Along the way humans grew a sense of morality, but where did this come from? Some believe it was provided by a God, others think it is a product of our consciousness. What is clear is that we can trace the origin of morality to our ancestors, namely the preservation of your own genes (family as well as racial) and the theory of reciprocity. This reciprocal altruïsm is believed to be the source of sympathy, trust and justice. 

According to evolutionary theory, our consciousness should serve a function. However, we can argue whether it has a function at all, and if so, what it would be. Owen Flanagan claims consciousness serves no evolutionary role, and therefore does not have a function. 

The book brings back an example from chapter 2, namely the zombie. If you assume it would be possible to be a ‘zombie’ ( to be without consciousness). How would consciousness have developed throughout society? Would it be possible to distinguish the people without a conscious to the people with? Chalmer writes that natural selection would be incapable of detecting a difference, as “they look the same and act the same by definition”. This would mean consciousness has not affected our development at all. 

It is very important to deeply think about what we might use our consciousness for, otherwise you won’t approach this problem correctly. A metaphor: you can still climb a mountain when being in bad health, you won’t lose your bodily functions, just like you won’t lose your cognitive abilities when you’re without a conscious. According to Dan Dennet, consciousness is not an extra feature of the human mind, but we should call ‘consciousness’ the fact that we are aware of your own state of mind.  

When did consciousness evolve? 

When did we evolve from unconscious beings to conscious ones? We should first ask ourselves a sub-question: did consciousness come gradually or immediately? Susan Greenfield believes consciousness has levels, which directly correlate to the size of the brain. However, Humphrey believes consciousness emerged instead of developing. 

Others believe consciousness has existed exactly as long as living beings. However, the level of consciousness may have evolved throughout time. Another theory is that consciousness requires a more complex nervous system, or a brain, which would mean consciousness evolved along with these structures. Todd Feinberg and Jon Mallatt suggest the origin of consciousness lie at the ability to process visual images onto the sensory system. This would mark the start at 560 million years ago, as it is believed the amphioxus was the first animal with this feature. A criticism of this theory is that it is untestable 

The last theory consciousness is defined in our ‘recent’ social skills, like social perception, imitation, and language. Julian Jaynes searched for the earliest literature possible, which would contain clues about the state of consciousness in the past. He found a 3000-year-old epic called Iliad. He found that the characters acted without thinking, doing what they were ordered to do by Gods. Jaynes used this to theorise consciousness as a human invention, an illusion, since we are unable to locate it inside ourselves. 

How does consciousness as an adaptive function work?

Now assume that consciousness does have a function. We could find this function in multiple fields, namely biological and social. 

Biological:

Feinberg and Mallat believed consciousness is vital to our evolutionary desire to survive, as without consciousness, life would have no meaning, and as such, we would have no desire to rescue ourselves from harmful situations. They also assume mental causation is influenced by natural selection, as those without it would have less probability to survive. Unfortunately, they have not gazed upon the subject why life would have no meaning or why there should be any at all. 

Jeffrey Gray took another stance to the biological function of consciousness, as he argues consciousness helps process colour, taste and senses (‘qualia’). He proves this by claiming that people with synaesthesia link words and colours to each other purely by conscious intuition, as there is no other connection between the two. Gray admits that even though he believes he proved the connection between qualia and consciousness, he cannot explain why there is a connection (known as ‘the hard problem’). 

 Social:

Humphrey thought of consciousness as a combination of brain activities, instead of a single property. Convinced. He was consciousness should make a difference, otherwise it wouldn’t have evolved. He believed consciousness had a social function, as it would allow us to make a distinction between friends and foes, as well as obtain the mental quality to understand, predict or manipulate others. With this quality, humans became ‘natural psychologist’ who were more capable of dealing in situations with other humans. They were able to think about their actions and learn from them.

Steven Mithen continues on this theory. He agrees that consciousness has a social function and that chimpanzees probably have conscious awareness of their own minds. But he argues that if Humphrey is right, this awareness should extend only to thoughts about social interaction. Yet we humans seem to be conscious of all sorts of other things. It is this broadening of awareness that he sees as critical in the creation of the modern human mind. He saw consciousness as ‘locked away’ in the human brain, and the more we evolved, the more consciousness was able to ‘free’ itself and become more evident in the human mind. According to him, this caused a cultural explosion 60,000 to 30,000 years ago, when the concept of language was born. He believed at first language was only used for social interaction (‘gossip’), but with consciousness growing bigger, we were able to use it to progress ourselves.

Both Humphrey and Mithen argue introspection is a product of consciousness (However, Horace Barlow disagrees, as he sees consciousness as a social product derived from communication, which can not be explained by introspection). The question that arises with this theory is: does natural selection act on how it feels to introspect or on the behavioural consequences of introspection? If you decide the latter, then the subjective experience has no evolutionary function in its own right. Both its existence and the reason why it evolved remain unexplained.

Is there consciousness without a function?

Yet another theory: consciousness doesn’t have a function, but then how did creatures built like us become conscious?

The Churchlands argue that once we understand the evolution of human behaviour, skills, and abilities, the whole idea of consciousness will just slip away. Therefore, there is no need to discuss how consciousness evolved.

Peter Halligan and David Oakley believe that conscious beings have an advantage because they communicate what their conscious tells them. This means that it is not the consciousness itself, but the fact that you talk about it that is noticed by natural selection.

Humphrey believes consciousness is responsible for the senses. He uses an example of an animal that moves to- and from vibration. At first we will be able to predict what it will do, but as soon as the animal develops more of a nervous system, it will be able to learn from itself and its movements will become more complex. This means that because of consciousness we are able to monitor our own actions, and reflect upon them.

Humphrey also tries to explain why we find consciousness so important. He thinks it matters so much to us because it made our ancestors find themselves more important, and therefore placed more value on their lives. He concludes from this that consciousness is something we made up in our own minds. However, even though it might be an illusion or a ‘magic show’, its effects are real enough.

What is the evolution of illusion?

The last theory about the function of consciousness is that consciousness is an illusion. The illusion itself may have an effect on us, but it doesn’t have any phenomenal or ‘what-it’s-like-to-be’ properties. This replaces the question ‘how did consciousness evolve?’ with ‘how did the illusion of consciousness evolve?’

Chris Firth’s view is that we called the properties on which natural selection acted ‘consciousness’. So natural selection acts on the ability to think, talk, and monitor internal states, and the result is what we call a conscious creature.

Guy Claxton has another theory, he believes that consciousness is a sort of super-alertness, which helps us stay focused and respond properly in case of emergencies. However, because we live in a kind of perpetual state of emergency, we are in a constant state of ‘super-alertness’. Therefore, if we would calm down, this state, and therefore our consciousness, would fade away.

What is universal Darwinism?

Darwin described the process for natural selection in a simple manner: if you have variation, selection, and heredity, then you must get evolution. However, there are more methods for evolution. For example the way a child learns to speak, or the way brains develop by killing of neurons and connections.

Daniel Dennett provides a framework for these evolutions of the brain called the ‘Tower of  Generate-and-Test’. It is system to categorize various design options for brains according to their ability to react to a given situation.

We now look at Darwinian theories of brain function. One example is Gerald Edelman’s theory of neural Darwinism. It depends on three main tenets. ‘Developmental selection’ occurs when the brain is growing and neurons send out branches in many directions, providing enormous variability in connection patterns. These are then pruned, depending on which are most used, to leave long-lasting functional groups. A similar process of ‘experiential selection’ goes on throughout life, with certain synapses within and between groups of locally coupled neurons being strengthened and others weakened, without changes in the anatomy. Finally, there is the novel process of ‘re-entry’, a dynamic process in which selective events across the brain’s various maps can be correlated. Re-entrant circuits entail massively parallel reciprocal connections between different brain areas, allowing diverse sensory and motor events to be synchronised. The activity of groups of neurons can contribute to consciousness if it forms part of what they call the ‘dynamic core’. This is an ever-changing yet highly integrated functional group involving large numbers of widely distributed thalamocortical neurons with strong mutual interactions. According to Edelman, these principles provide the basis for understanding both the ongoing unity and the endless variety of human consciousness. A problem with this theory is that it doesn’t include a mechanism for copying patterns, only generating them.

William Calvin had another theory which does include copying. He describes the brain as a Darwin machine and sets even higher standards for a truly Darwinian creative process, listing six requirements, all of which are satisfied in the brain. Most important is his understanding of copying. Throughout the cerebral cortex, he argues, are spatiotemporal firing patterns that represent concepts, words, or images. These patterns depend on the way cortical cells are wired up in columns, and with both lateral inhibition and lateral excitation at different distances. The result is hexagonal structures about half a millimetre across that can be copied or cloned and that compete for survival in a truly Darwinian process. Imagine a vast, ever-shifting quilt of hexagons, all jostling to survive and get copied, some cloning whole areas like themselves while others die out. Consciousness is the currently dominant patch of the hexagonal patterned quilt.