• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The evolution of the brain and nervous system, and the mind and consciousness

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Consciousness in humans easily defined, and pretty well understood. Consciousness in animals uses similar definitions, but describes consciousness in animals by degree compared to humans. This refelects the evolution in animals, which parallels the evolution of the complexity of the brain.

From: Animal consciousness - Wikipedia

Animal consciousness, or animal awareness, is the quality or state of self-awareness within an animal, or of being aware of an external object or something within itself.[2][3] In humans, consciousness has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, qualia, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.[4] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[5]

The topic of animal consciousness is beset with a number of difficulties. It poses the problem of other minds in an especially severe form because animals, lacking the ability to use human language (except certain birds such as grey parrots), cannot tell us about their experiences.[6] Also, it is difficult to reason objectively about the question, because a denial that an animal is conscious is often taken to imply that it does not feel, its life has no value, and that harming it is not morally wrong. The 17th-century French philosopher René Descartes, for example, has sometimes been blamed for mistreatment of animals because he argued that only humans are conscious.[7]

Philosophers who consider subjective experience the essence of consciousness also generally believe, as a correlate, that the existence and nature of animal consciousness can never rigorously be known. The American philosopher Thomas Nagelspelled out this point of view in an influential essay titled What Is it Like to Be a Bat?. He said that an organism is conscious "if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism"; and he argued that no matter how much we know about an animal's brain and behavior, we can never really put ourselves into the mind of the animal and experience its world in the way it does itself.[8]Other thinkers, such as the cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, dismiss this argument as incoherent.[9] Several psychologists and ethologists have argued for the existence of animal consciousness by describing a range of behaviors that appear to show animals holding beliefs about things they cannot directly perceive—Donald Griffin's 2001 book Animal Minds reviews a substantial portion of the evidence.[10]

Animal consciousness has been actively researched for over one hundred years.[11] In 1927 the American functional psychologist Harvey Carr argued that any valid measure or understanding of awareness in animals depends on "an accurate and complete knowledge of its essential conditions in man".[12] A more recent review concluded in 1985 that "the best approach is to use experiment (especially psychophysics) and observation to trace the dawning and ontogeny of self-consciousness, perception, communication, intention, beliefs, and reflection in normal human fetuses, infants, and children".[11] In 2012, a group of neuroscientists signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which "unequivocally" asserted that "humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neural substrates."

Advanced forms of consciousness by degree reflected in evolution can be found many animals in particularly in our relatives the primates.

Other non-mammal animals such cehlapods:

From: Animal consciousness - Wikipedia

Cephalopod intelligence has an important comparative aspect in the understanding of intelligence because it relies on a nervous system fundamentally different from that of vertebrates.[1] The cephalopod class of molluscs, particularly the Coleoidea subclass (cuttlefish, squid, octopuses), are thought to be the most intelligent invertebrates and an important example of advanced cognitive evolution in animals.

The scope of cephalopod intelligence is controversial, complicated by the elusive nature and esoteric thought processes of these creatures. In spite of this, the existence of impressive spatial learning capacity, navigational abilities, and predatory techniques in cephalopods is widely acknowledged.[2].

Nagel's bat has always been puzzling to me. Why would *we* need to experience what the bat does to know what it is like to be a bat in most particulars?

This is another of those claims that there is a 'hard problem' of consciousness, which, truthfully, I just don't accept. If we are able to correlate brain activity to conscious experiences in mutually predicable ways, how is that *not* an explanation of consciousness and the mind? And we just apply that same technique to other species.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You're not getting the issue. Nowhere did you provide anything saying how the brain creates consciousness. For instance, I don't agree with your evidence provided (Life evolve from single celled organisms, to multi-cellular organisms, to organisms with symmetry and primitive nervous nervous systems to more complex organisms with brains and nervous systems). Yet I am not a material reductionist. Yes, biological life evolves into more complex organisms. How does that support your conclusion that "emergence' pf the mind and consciousness through evolution."?

Well, we can look at the types and degrees of conscious awareness in other animals, correlate that to the complexity of the brain, and see how the relevant structures evolved over time. At the level of jellyfish, there is no consciousness. At the level of humans, there is. At the level of other mammals, there is consciousness, but not as much self-consciousness. We can check behaviorally for the existence of internal states (REM sleep, for example).

This all supports that consciousness is an evolved phenomenon directly linked to neural complexity.


I have. You continue to refuse and address any of it. Take your pick.

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

What contradictory properties? The mind processes information. Matter can do that. The mind has various states of sensitivity. Matter can do that. The mind can store information (memory). Matter can do that.

Precisely what do you think the mind does that matter cannot do?

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

Yes, we have to be conscious to know anything. A computer has to be on to accept information. So what? We can still test hypotheses and correlate information and use that to understand how and in what circumstances consciousness arises and what its properties are.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence included medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

The mind certainly does NOT go against nature. it is part of nature. It questions by seeking new information. That can be done by matter. It manipulates through the physical laws. That is done by matter. Perhaps one of the issues here is that matter is much more versatile than you imagine.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

We've gone over this before. Your evidence is poor, at best. And it is contradicted by many other sources.

[QuoteN]Nonethelessmaterialism does not violate the law of identity, because it simply expresses it in materialist terms. You need to make a coherent argument for this without making theistic assumptions up front concerning the law of identity.[/quote]

"Theistic assumptions" is some fun pseudobabble in place of a real objection, nice![/QUOTE]

Well, anything the mind can do, matter can do also. We have specific locations where the mind processes the information that defines it as being a mind: in the brain. We have no evidence of the brain merely being a receiver as opposed to the actual originator since we have no other 'signal' to point to.

The transmitter theory of consciousness seems just like a desperate attempt to suggesting possibilities without evidence. It is like saying there is no gravity and planets are pushed around by angels in exactly the way gravity would do it
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Haha wow, even when presented my points clear as day you can't/won't even address them. Classic ****ing materialism. Any position that can't and won't defend itself shouldn't be seriously considered, QED. Let this stand as yet YET ANOTHER testament to materialism for onlookers.

You have yet to give a contradiction to the law of identity. Everything mind can do, so can matter. So there is no contradiction to the law of identity.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This statement:

"the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms supporting consciousness in humans are found at the earliest points of vertebrate brain evolution."

is not a promise to find those brain structures someday when more evidence is acquired.

You need to understand what is referred to as 'pathway' in the the evolution of the brain. Yes the basic structures, and by the way the basic genetics, that make up the the vertebrate brain are found in the earliest brains. This alone would not be the conclusion, but as the brain and nervous system evolves in more complex animals the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms become progressively more complex, based on the structural and genetic foundation of the earliest brain and nervous system..
 
Last edited:

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Knowledge relies on consciousness, but not other things. The chair in my room does not rely on consciousness, only my knowledge of it.

That's just a claim. Everything we've ever imagined or studied or defined relies on consciousness. Hell so far as we can know consciousness might be the foundational "substance".

How does consciousness as a process in the brain violate the law of identity? Be specific. Which contradictory properties?

Because they're have entirely different properties. Spacial vs nonspacial, universal vs private, objective vs subjective, linear vs autonomous, and much more. We've talked about them all in depth many times. $100 says you just go back to pretending you've never heard them.

No I do NOT accept it is exists as magic. I accept that it exists as a natural phenomenon. Yes, in fact, nature does create such things and in abundance, clearly.

Cool! So self regulation works in the natural world without consciousness? And what parts do I need to grow a sick modern gaming computer in my garden?

that there are other ways to detect radio waves and consciousness occurs in no other places than brains. The brain as a receiver simply doesn't work with the data we have.

You... You can't detect consciousness in others?
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Well, we can look at the types and degrees of conscious awareness in other animals, correlate that to the complexity of the brain, and see how the relevant structures evolved over time. At the level of jellyfish, there is no consciousness. At the level of humans, there is. At the level of other mammals, there is consciousness, but not as much self-consciousness. We can check behaviorally for the existence of internal states (REM sleep, for example).

If I build a radio with ALMOST the right parts it still won't work. I completely agree our consciousness is due to the reciever being more complex than most or all other life. Once again materialism suggests a point that violates neither Dualism or idealism.

contradictory properties? The mind processes information. Matter can do that. The mind has various states of sensitivity. Matter can do that. The mind can store information (memory). Matter can do that.

I win $100! Not gonna waste my time doing this again for you to pretend it never happened. What a joke.

Yes, we have to be conscious to know anything. A computer has to be on to accept information. So what? We can still test hypotheses and correlate information and use that to understand how and in what circumstances consciousness arises and what its properties are.

I love how you concede the point then hold to your faith anyways. Classic.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
This statement:

"the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms supporting consciousness in humans are found at the earliest points of vertebrate brain evolution."

is not a promise to find those brain structures someday when more evidence is acquired.

That is true...I read more of the article and determined that they had cited several sources to support that assertion.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
That's just a claim. Everything we've ever imagined or studied or defined relies on consciousness. Hell so far as we can know consciousness might be the foundational "substance".

it only 'relies on consciousness' in the very weak sense that we have to be conscious to learn anything. In no way does the chair in my room rely on my being conscious to exist. My knowledge of it is irrelevant to it.

Because they're have entirely different properties. Spacial vs nonspacial, universal vs private, objective vs subjective, linear vs autonomous, and much more. We've talked about them all in depth many times. $100 says you just go back to pretending you've never heard them.

Spatial? Minds happen in brains. Universal vs private? We can detect thoughts now with brain scans. Objective vs subjective? That's just which material system is being affected. Linear vs autonomous? I have no idea what you mean here.

In other words, NOTHING on the list you gave distinguishes matter from mind.


Cool! So self regulation works in the natural world without consciousness? And what parts do I need to grow a sick modern gaming computer in my garden?

Huh? Yes, there are natural feedback loops. They are not as complicated as those in living things, but they exist. And not all living things are conscious, so the 'regulation' aspect is not associated with consciousness as much as it is associated with life.

You won't grow a computer in your garden. For one, computers don't reproduce. But you also won't make a star in your garden. That doens't mean that stars are non-material.

You... You can't detect consciousness in others?

Of course we can. I notice all the time when people are conscious as opposed to unconscious. It is usually pretty clear. We can tell that even other animals have the ability to model the world around them, dream, etc, so have internal states, i.e, consciousness.

Again, this really isn't as hard as you out to be. Just observe a bit.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
If I build a radio with ALMOST the right parts it still won't work. I completely agree our consciousness is due to the reciever being more complex than most or all other life. Once again materialism suggests a point that violates neither Dualism or idealism.

But why assume more than is required to get an explanation? Consciousness and minds are very well described by the activities of the brain. To postulate more than that is not required. That is in direct contrast to radio, where there are other methods of detection (even very simple setups will detect radio waves). When brains are the *only* way to 'detect' consciousness, and when the mechanisms in the brain mediate every stage of mental activities, it seems perverse to claim there is something else that is not detectable going on.


I win $100! Not gonna waste my time doing this again for you to pretend it never happened. What a joke.

Well, you gave no argument. You make assertions that are contrary to actual observations.

I love how you concede the point then hold to your faith anyways. Classic.

That's because I see the 'point' as irrelevant to the issue. The chair in my room exists whether or not I am conscious. Yes, *I* can only know about it when I am conscious. But that is nothing different than an electronic device requiring electricity to work. That doesn't mean that everything is determined by electricity. And it doesn't mean that consciousness is in any way fundamental to the universe. It is just what defines how *we* interact.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That's just a claim. Everything we've ever imagined or studied or defined relies on consciousness. Hell so far as we can know consciousness might be the foundational "substance".

This is possible especially if you are a Theist as I am, but it is not the subject ot the thread.

Cool! So self regulation works in the natural world without consciousness? And what parts do I need to grow a sick modern gaming computer in my garden?
Sarcasm gets you nowhere. Self regulation exists in simple life forms like microbes without consciousness.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If I build a radio with ALMOST the right parts it still won't work. I completely agree our consciousness is due to the receiver being more complex than most or all other life.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the natural processes involved in evolution. All I can say here is Huh?!?!?!?

Once again materialism suggests a point that violates neither Dualism or idealism.

Once again . . . You need to support this with a logical argument without theistic assumption.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
For those who are interested in the gradual evolution of the mind and consciousness I recommend Donald Griffin's book Animal Minds.

Consciousness Explained is a 1991 book by the American philosopher Daniel Dennett
that is another reference, but does not have as strong a scientific foundation as Griffin's book.
 
Last edited:

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
The experiment you cited was nothing to do with delayed choice eraser.

It was the simple double slit experiment - for which I was able to predict the outcome without reading the article. So no surprises there.

You seem to be wandering about aimlessly. Can you get a grip and stay on-topic?

No comment. See post #108 ;)
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Nagel's bat has always been puzzling to me. Why would *we* need to experience what the bat does to know what it is like to be a bat in most particulars?

This is another of those claims that there is a 'hard problem' of consciousness, which, truthfully, I just don't accept. If we are able to correlate brain activity to conscious experiences in mutually predicable ways, how is that *not* an explanation of consciousness and the mind? And we just apply that same technique to other species.

In many animals the determinism and measurement of consciousness is not as specific and clear, but many animals it is unmistakably easily definable as consciousness as in cephalopods such the squids, and primates. Squids show amazing intelligence problem solving skills that cannot be performed with out consciousness, such as being able to open jars to get food without prior learning experience. The also show many other behaviors such as intelligent navigation skill, spacial learning, predatory techniques and cooperative abilities.

Primates show a wide range of emotional relationship behaviors such as mourning the loose of dead companions and relatives.

The observation of dreaming universally in mammals, and the possibility in other animals is a key element of the consciousness.

To understand the evolution of consciousness in animals it is necessary to look at the animal kingdoms as a whole and how consciousness progresses and evolves from the simple to the complex.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
In many animals the determinism and measurement of consciousness is not as specific and clear, but many animals it is unmistakably easily definable as consciousness as in cephalopods such the squids, and primates. Squids show amazing intelligence problem solving skills that cannot be performed with out consciousness, such as being able to open jars to get food without prior learning experience. The also show many other behaviors such as intelligent navigation skill, spacial learning, predatory techniques and cooperative abilities.

Primates show a wide range of emotional relationship behaviors such as mourning the loose of dead companions and relatives.

The observation of dreaming universally in mammals, and the possibility in other animals is a key element of the consciousness.

To understand the evolution of consciousness in animals it is necessary to look at the animal kingdoms as a whole and how consciousness progresses and evolves from the simple to the complex.

You also have to evaluate the animal in its environment to fully understand the level of consciousness. Laboratory evaluations control variables well but become artificial and underestimate animal behavior. Also if you look and embryology and comparative animal development you see how the most basic developmental processes are well preserved through the vertebrates with convergent evolution creating remarkable homologous solutions to the development advanced cognitive behavior.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You also have to evaluate the animal in its environment to fully understand the level of consciousness. Laboratory evaluations control variables well but become artificial and underestimate animal behavior. Also if you look and embryology and comparative animal development you see how the most basic developmental processes are well preserved through the vertebrates with convergent evolution creating remarkable homologous solutions to the development advanced cognitive behavior.

Good observations. A lot of the observations of animals are in their natural environments, but, also, animals that are adapt to lab and human environments intelligently show an extra measure consciousness as squids adapt to human environments show an extra measure of consciousness.
 

ScottySatan

Well-Known Member
After life arose through chemical evolution to self=replicating and self sustaining organisms. Life evolve from single celled organisms, to multi-cellular organisms, to organisms with symmetry and primitive nervous nervous systems to more complex organisms with brains and nervous systems. The objective verifiable evidence provides the foundation for the hypothesis of the 'emergence' pf the mind and consciousness through evolution.

This thread proposal like the previous one on the science of abiogenesis will focus on the science, but like before some posters will avoid the science for more subjective anecdotal arguments.

I can't answer your questions, but I have a cool and relevant, I think, story to contribute.

British Biologist Sydney Brenner had finished assembling a virus completely in vitro (in glass, synthetically) and wanted to go on to his next big question: How is an animal brain put together? The simplest/closest model animal at the time was the famous fruit fly, drosophila. But they have way too many neurons (I think 10,000ish?) in their tiny brain to track and catalog. He needed a simpler animal. He went out into the grass outside his office window picked up a spoonful of dirt, and picked out a Nematode, a nearly microscopic roundworm. It was the birth of C. elegans as a model system. He chose it in order to count the neurons in its brain, track their develepoment from a single celled embryo, and make a very comprehensive set of studies to completely map the entire brain of an animal at the cellular level, perhaps to begin to answer some of these questions about "what is a brain? what is a mind?".

He was very successful and got himself a Nobel prize for this. They were able to not only track all the brain cells through development, but every cell in the worm's body. Every cell through every cell division from single celled zygote through adult has been cataloged and labeled.

Decades later, C. elegans continues to be a model organism, and I'm sure there are many studies on the brain and how it develops. Evolution of the brain? yes. Nervous system? yes. Decision making? yes. The mind? maybe. Consciousness? probably not.

It's a start. I recommend you check it out.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
If I build a radio with ALMOST the right parts it still won't work. I completely agree our consciousness is due to the reciever being more complex than most or all other life. Once again materialism suggests a point that violates neither Dualism or idealism.
Sorry, but equating consciousness with radio waves or tv signals are faulty examples.

Plus radio waves are themselves not consciousness.

As to dualism and idealism, I don’t have any idea why you would bring either up.

Consciousness is the activity of the brain that process what we see, hear, feel, taste or smell.

Without the brain, we cannot be consciousness of anything.

Consciousness isn’t an external force, and it cannot exist outside any sentient beings (including humans).

What you have been arguing about with shunyadragon and with polymath257 about consciousness falls under the category of supernatural.

What you accused others who disagree with you being materialism is pretty typical of believers of the superstition and supernatural. I would say they are believers of Naturalism as opposed to your belief in your supernatural claims.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I can't answer your questions, but I have a cool and relevant, I think, story to contribute.

British Biologist Sydney Brenner had finished assembling a virus completely in vitro (in glass, synthetically) and wanted to go on to his next big question: How is an animal brain put together? The simplest/closest model animal at the time was the famous fruit fly, drosophila. But they have way too many neurons (I think 10,000ish?) in their tiny brain to track and catalog. He needed a simpler animal. He went out into the grass outside his office window picked up a spoonful of dirt, and picked out a Nematode, a nearly microscopic roundworm. It was the birth of C. elegans as a model system. He chose it in order to count the neurons in its brain, track their develepoment from a single celled embryo, and make a very comprehensive set of studies to completely map the entire brain of an animal at the cellular level, perhaps to begin to answer some of these questions about "what is a brain? what is a mind?".

He was very successful and got himself a Nobel prize for this. They were able to not only track all the brain cells through development, but every cell in the worm's body. Every cell through every cell division from single celled zygote through adult has been cataloged and labeled.

Decades later, C. elegans continues to be a model organism, and I'm sure there are many studies on the brain and how it develops. Evolution of the brain? yes. Nervous system? yes. Decision making? yes. The mind? maybe. Consciousness? probably not.

It's a start. I recommend you check it out.

The embryologic development of vertebrates also gives us insight in how preserved the critical components for the development of all brain structures. The vertebrate hindbrain and midbrain much more well preserved while the forebrain shows so much diversity. In the developing forebrain the Cajal-Retzius cells create a scaffolding in a radial zones with successive layers in mammals with the characteristic neocortex whereas the same cells in birds create dispersed points creating clumps of neurologic tissue rather than the layers in mammals. This is an amazing example of convergent evolution creating two different way to pathways for complex cognitive structures capable of conscious behavior as well as other important complex behavior patterns.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Sorry, but equating consciousness with radio waves or tv signals are faulty examples.

Plus radio waves are themselves not consciousness.

As to dualism and idealism, I don’t have any idea why you would bring either up.

Consciousness is the activity of the brain that process what we see, hear, feel, taste or smell.

Without the brain, we cannot be consciousness of anything.

Consciousness isn’t an external force, and it cannot exist outside any sentient beings (including humans).

What you have been arguing about with shunyadragon and with polymath257 about consciousness falls under the category of supernatural.

What you accused others who disagree with you being materialism is pretty typical of believers of the superstition and supernatural. I would say they are believers of Naturalism as opposed to your belief in your supernatural claims.
I'm sure that's right.

Thinking of consciousness as an entity, a "thing", is a category mistake. It is an activity: the activity of the brain. Just as the functioning of the computer operating system "animates" a computer.

Unfortunately dualist thinking has so dominated Western thought since the Ancient Greeks - and given another boost by Descartes - that we find it hard to let go of the idea that consciousness is a thing separate from matter.
 
Top