Why did the experience of consciousness evolve from our underlying brain physiology? Despite being a vibrant area of neuroscience, current research into consciousness is characterized by disagreement and controversy – with several rival theories in contention.
A recent exploratory review of more than 1,000 articles identified more than 20 different theoretical narratives. Philosophers like David Chalmers argue that no scientific theory can truly explain consciousness.
We define consciousness as embodied subjective consciousness, including self-consciousness. In a recent article published in Interalia (which was not peer-reviewed), we argue that one reason for this predicament is the powerful role that intuition plays.
We are not alone. Social scientist Jacy Reese Anthis writes that “much of the debate over the fundamental nature of consciousness takes the form of an intuitive joust, with the various sides each reporting their own strong intuitions and playing them off against each other.”
Dangers of intuition
Key intuitive beliefs – for example, that our mental processes are distinct from our physical bodies (mind-body dualism) and that our mental processes give rise to and control our decisions and actions (mental causality) – are supported by a lifetime of subjective experience .
These beliefs are found in all human cultures. They are important because they serve as foundational beliefs for most liberal democracies and criminal justice systems. They are resistant to counterevidence. That’s because they are strongly endorsed by social and cultural concepts such as free will, human rights, democracy, justice and moral responsibility. All these concepts assume that consciousness plays a central controlling influence.
However, intuition is an automatic, cognitive process that has evolved to provide quick, reliable explanations and predictions. In fact, this happens without us having to know how or why we know it. The results of intuition therefore determine how we perceive and explain our everyday world without the need for extensive reflection or formal analytical explanations.
Although useful and indeed crucial for many daily activities, intuitive beliefs can be wrong. They can also hinder scientific literacy.
Intuitive stories about consciousness ultimately put us at the wheel as “captain of our own ship.” We think we know what consciousness is and what it does by simply experiencing it. Mental thoughts, intentions and desires are seen as determining and controlling our actions.
The widespread acceptance of these tacit intuitive accounts helps partly explain why the formal study of consciousness was relegated to the margins of mainstream neuroscience until the late 20th century.
The problem for scientific models of consciousness remains accommodating these intuitive accounts within a materialistic framework consistent with the findings of neuroscience. Although there is currently no scientific explanation for how brain tissue generates or maintains subjective experiences, the consensus among (most) neuroscientists is that brain tissue is a product of brain processes.
Social purpose
If that is the case, why did consciousness, defined as subjective awareness, evolve?
Consciousness probably evolved as part of the evolution of the nervous system. According to several theories, the main adaptive function of consciousness (providing an organism with survival and reproductive advantages) is to enable volitional movements. And willpower is something that we ultimately associate with will, freedom of choice and individuality. It is therefore easy to think that consciousness evolved for the benefit of us as individuals.
But we have argued that consciousness may have evolved to facilitate important social adaptive functions. Rather than helping individuals survive, it has evolved to help us spread our experienced ideas and feelings to the wider world. And this could benefit the survival and well-being of the wider species.
The idea fits in with the new thinking about genetics. While evolutionary science has traditionally focused on individual genes, there is growing recognition that natural selection in humans operates at multiple levels. For example, culture and society influence traits that are passed on from generation to generation; some we value more than others.
Central to our story is the idea that sociality (the tendency of groups and individuals to develop social bonds and live in communities) is an important survival strategy that influences the way the brain and cognition evolve.
Adopting this social-evolutionary framework, we propose that subjective consciousness does not have any independent capacity to causally influence other psychological processes or actions. An example of this is initiating an action plan. The idea that subjective consciousness has a social purpose has been described previously by other researchers.
However, the claim that subjective consciousness has no causal influence does not mean that the reality of the subjective experience is denied or that the experience is an illusion.
Although our model removes subjective consciousness from the traditional driver’s seat of the mind, this does not mean that we do not value personal internal experiences. It is precisely because of the value we place on these experiences that intuitive narratives remain compelling and widespread in social and legal organizational systems and psychology.
While it is counterintuitive to attribute agency and personal responsibility to a biological collection of neurons, it stands to reason that highly valued social constructs such as free will, truth, fairness, and honesty can be meaningfully attributed to individuals as responsible human beings in a social context . community.
Think about it. Although we are deeply rooted in our biological nature, our social nature is largely determined by our roles and interactions in society. As such, the mental architecture of the mind must be highly adapted for the exchange and reception of information, ideas and feelings.
Thus, although the brain as biological organs is incapable of responsibility and agency, legal and social traditions have long held individuals accountable for their behavior.
The key to achieving a more scientific explanation of subjective consciousness requires accepting that biology and culture jointly determine how the brain evolves. Subjective consciousness comprises only part of the much larger mental architecture of the brain, designed to facilitate the survival and well-being of species.
Peter W Halligan, Professor of Neuropsychology, Cardiff University and David A Oakley, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, UCL
This article is republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
