How Did Consciousness Originate? (evolution)

[Kungfuzed]

It seems there's a self awareness test for elephants. http://www.comcast.net/news/science/...31/510597.html

In a 2005 experiment, Happy faced her reflection in an 8-by-8-foot mirror and repeatedly used her trunk to touch an "X" painted above her eye. The elephant could not have seen the mark except in her reflection. Furthermore, Happy ignored a similar mark, made on the opposite side of her head in paint of an identical smell and texture, that was invisible unless seen under black light.
"It seems to verify for us she definitely recognized herself in the mirror," said Joshua Plotnik, one of the researchers behind the study. Details appear this week on the Web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

If all animals have a degree of consciousness/awareness, it removes some of the Specialness of man.
Religions and scientists both prefer to think this is not true, and spend far more time trying to disprove it than to prove it.
To think that our food animals might be aware, frightens some people.

I do not think man just acquired consciousness along the way. I would say it is a natural state of all higher animals, but that it is perhaps more highly developed in man, as a result of his use of tools and structures and in particular his use of language.

IMO the development of language is extremely important in the consciousness we experience. Chimps do not have this language ability so are probably self-aware (conscious) of themselves as entities without naming. Language must provide most of the content of our consciousness. In particular because it allows us to refer to non-present, abstract entities. Although conscious, I do not think chimps could be described as self-aware as in having a personal identity.

[PureX]

I saw recently on a PBS documentary that a set of genes have been isolated that are believed to specifically enable language in we humans. And that when this particular genetic mutation shows up in our history, human behaviors did change dramatically.

[logician]

Humans may have a sense of self-awareness locally, but on a cosmic scale we may be very unaware.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by PureX

To give an example, if humans were self-aware, they could govern their numbers relative to their resources. As it is, we can't even manage ourselves on a level this simple and obvious. So what do we really have to say about self-awareness?

Interesting point.

I think that's more about us being anthropocentric (human-centered) than ecocentric (centered on the ecosystem), though.

Perhaps consciousness comes about as a response to the success of the survivability of the individual. Without the need to focus on just trying to stay alive, an individual's mind can exert more energy in "higher functions," much like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. This may argue that creatures that don't have to worry about surviving, i.e. pets, may be more conscious than other animals.

Here's an interesting article of the subject of consciousness and the struggle of different scientific branches to understand it: http://www.livescience.com/humanbiol...ciousness.html

[logician]

We may be aware of our own existence, but the bigger question is, is there any meaning to existence, besides our own struggles to survive? Being self aware brings along a lot of baggage, like being aware of ones faults and failures, it certainly is no panacea.

[des]

Anyone ever read, "Origin of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind"?
At one time, it was "the" book to read, and is pretty dense.
This book theorizes (though theory might be too strong a word-- there is no way of testing it), that very early humans did not have a concept of themselves like modern humans. That they basically had an external consciousness that was held together of by the varied myths of the day.
He quotes various early texts that seem to show an early people utterly attached and connected to the mythology in a way that present day humans are not.

As I said there isn't anyway to prove his text, but is a pretty interesting concept. It also fails to allow for graduations of consciousnesss such as what some mammals like chimps, dolphins, and elephants show, where they apparently do see "inside myself" vs "outside myself" and recognize
their image in a mirror. (I don't think that research had been done at that time, it is a pretty old book.)

Also it doesn't allow for the idea that perhaps earlier humans thought in a different way than modern humans (just as there are huge differences in Eastern and Western religion). Many Biblical scholars, for instance, think it is unlikely that the ancient writers were as dualistic as modern people and made the separation of myth vs "reality" the way we do today. So the early story of the flood, would not have been thought of as "this is the truth" or "this is just a myth", the same way we might. So the ancient Sumatrans might not have seen their conversations with the gods quite as we might see them today.

Anyway, if you have a good vocabulary and attention span, it is still a worthy (though difficult) read.


--des

[Rolling_Stone]

Heck, scientists can't even agree on what consciousness is, let alone define it. It does, however, pose something of a problem for materialists. Very briefly, the problem is this:

If we suppose the unity of matter and consciousness to be unbroken, we arrive at the existence of consciousness inhabiting even those forms we don’t recognize as conscious. If, on the other hand, we contend that matter-energy is intrinsically devoid of consciousness, we have to deal with explanations that are inadequate and strained. To say consciousness “emerged” from matter explains nothing. How does consciousness emerge from something in which it is entirely absent? Where is the sufficient cause? Logically, it's no different than something from nothing. We also have to explain the apparent ability of consciousness to be both the result and utilizer of the material brain. The problem is, the physical organism and what occurs in it no more explains consciousness than the construction and operation of an engine explains the energy that drives it. Yet, if consciousness is an extension of matter, a part of the engint iteslf, the opinions and judgments of consciousness are products of mechanical or statistical necessity and consciousness is not really conscious at all.

[Flappycat]

Well, the most basic level of consciousness is probably located in the thalamus.

It's this little guy:



However, the phenomenon we know as "consciousness" may occur whenever information is passed from one part of the brain to the other. We would probably benefit a great deal from this, considering that realizing a predator is about to eat you requires some transfer of information. Even the chemical transfer of information between ants results in a colony of ants exhibiting a higher level of awareness than a single ant, though any number of ants is probably pretty dumb in comparison to a rat. This doesn't keep the rat from being eaten by a particularly thuggish species of ant, of course, so who is to say which is more brilliant? The rat who invented Sevin dust, of course!

I consider it a life goal to have the two hemispheres my brain implanted into seperate bodies, so I can have conversations with myself. It's all about the communication.