Jacob Westmoreland is from Indianapolis, IN and he graduated in December 2020 with a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice and a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology.  Jacob’s research paper was written for Professor Duane Lundy’s Evolutionary Psychology class in the Summer of 2020.  Professor Lundy writes, “Jacob tackled one of the most difficult concepts in cognitive science and applied an evolutionary lens, applying course learning to a high degree to create a clearly written analysis.” 

The Evolution of Consciousness

Consciousness is a concept which has been examined, theorized, and rethought repeatedly in biological and social sciences and philosophy. It is such a complex topic that simply defining the concept may be as contentious as the origins of consciousness itself. The topic is one in which many dedicate their entire careers to understanding and yet, some would argue that we are no closer to understanding what consciousness is and why humans are conscious. The evolutionary necessity of consciousness is particularly perplexing when it is revealed that consciousness isn’t needed for most, if not all biological processes. With this paper, I will attempt to identify a definition of consciousness, discuss a potential cause for humans evolving into conscious beings, discuss criticisms of an evolved consciousness theory, and raise questions for future research.

Consciousness Defined

The brain, described as a bunch of “clueless neurons” by Tufts University Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, Daniel Dennett (2017), is largely at the center of the consciousness debate, as its complexity has yet to be fully understood by psychologists, neuroscientists, and biologists alike. Consciousness, at a medical level is merely a description of wakefulness and awareness in which one is subjectively experiencing its own sensations (Solso, 2003). The better term for this medical state may be responsiveness instead of consciousness, however; as even when we are unresponsive, such as in sleep, we still display consciousness through our dreams (Jaynes, 2000).

It is arguably a requirement of consciousness for one to be attentive and wakeful, but one could also describe a termite in those terms and still not consider it conscious. This is because a termite doesn’t function as itself alone, but as a part of a hive much as our neurons function as a part of our body (Dennett, 2017). Other requirements of consciousness include the architecture of physiological structures to cause consciousness, namely, a brain; the ability to recall knowledge, emotive capabilities, the inclination to seek out and focus on novelty, the ability to recognize and select an inner dialogue, thoughts, as it pertains to outside stimuli or generated by other thoughts, and to have a subjective experience within those thoughts (Solso, 2003). The collection of all of these is what makes human-level consciousness most unique. Other organisms may have some of these characteristics which can be considered a level of limited consciousness, but humans are the only organisms which fit the aforementioned criteria, known as the AWAREness model (Solso, 2003).

Development of Consciousness

Focusing on the evolutionary aspect of consciousness, one of the first questions which must be asked regards how consciousness evolved in humans. It is clear through the AWAREness model, that single cells are not conscious. These small, fundamental building blocks of life are microscopic, organic machines which obey their programming to replicate and create more copies of itself. The cell consumes food and respires to create energy. It regulates the amount of fluid inside its cell membrane or wall and does it’s best to avoid death. It also creates waste, and as mentioned, it reproduces. These, fundamentally, are also the things humans do. Hunger for food and minerals, thirst, respiration and pain and death avoidance, and reproduction are many of the unchanged evolutionary features of organisms (Denton, Mckinley, Farrell, & Egan, 2009).

Using the idea of the Panglossian Paradigm (Gould & Lewontin, 1979), which argues that evolutionary science must consider what purpose an adaptation evolved to fulfill instead of how a species currently uses it, the question which must be answered involves how consciousness led to reproductive success in order for H. Sapiens to be more fit as a species than H. Neanderthalensis; another hominid inhabiting Europe and western Asia from two hundred thousand to thirty thousand years ago. More than fifty thousand years ago, these two groups of hominids were relatively similar in tool and fire usage. However, between forty and fifty thousand years ago a “creative explosion” (Buss, 2019, pg. 43) occurred in which H. Sapiens began to produce art, produce elaborate burial sites, and technology superior to the Neanderthals (Buss, 2019). Some point to the production of art as evidence when H. Sapiens developed consciousness as we know it today (Solso, 2003).

What has been found is that study of early hominids contained brain connections unlike its simian predecessors. Based on archeological evidence, many brain functions evolved that were capable of producing complex emotions like empathy. Also evident was concern for aesthetics in tool making which allowed for more effective and refined tools (Cloninger, 2009). It may be through a simple mechanism like intrasexual competition among male hominids (Buss, 2019) that, as refined tool making processes became more associated with better hunting outcomes and breeding possibilities, the emergence of better tool design became a priority. In H. Sapiens the ability for recalling hunting outcomes and a more advanced brain, now equipped with direct associations among the frontal, temporal, and parietal areas by which visual information passes through (Cloninger, 2009). This level of processing allows for another fundamental aspect of consciousness, spatial reasoning (Jaynes, 2000).

Spatialization allows one to introspect and “see” an idea or metaphor without the object in physical space (Jaynes, 2000). This is essentially the ability to imagine or use one’s imagination. Therefore, instead of simply copying another tool which has been used and been effective in the past, spatial reasoning allowed H. Sapiens to be nuanced in toolmaking. Now able to visualize, create, and use tools made from bones, antlers, and ivory (Buss, 2019), this capability of imaginative thinking or consciousness as we know it, led to what has been called the “big bang of human culture” (Solso, 2003). This ultimately leads us to the idea that consciousness is a byproduct of evolution through the connection of various brain functions and an increase in neural capacity (Bronfman, Ginsburg, & Jablonka, 2016).

Consciousness as a Byproduct

A 2016 article by Bronfman et al. hypothesized that consciousness isn’t an answer to an adaptive problem, rather it is the byproduct of unlimited associative learning (UAL). Through tracking how close other species are to achieving UAL, this theory suggests that one could track down the point at which consciousness evolved (Gutfreund, 2018). Bronfman et al. (2016) discuss that UAL evolved through the emergence of neural structures which function together in order to create the possibility of UAL, and thus its byproduct, consciousness. This does not mean that creatures who do not have the structures necessary for UAL are not conscious (Bronfman et al., 2016).

Rather than postulate that humans have consciousness and all other species do not, they suggest certain species in the animal kingdom may have the necessary requirements for minimal consciousness (Bronfman et al., 2016). This was an idea also mentioned by Solso (2003) when discussing the AWAREness definition of consciousness as it applies to a cockroach. Solso (2003) suggests that the cockroach has an AWA level of consciousness, that is that it is attentive of its internal and external states and stimuli, it is wakeful, and it possesses the physiological architecture for limited consciousness.

The issue with considering consciousness as a byproduct is, unlike other evolutionary byproducts like a bellybutton (Buss, 2019), the removal of consciousness will greatly affect the continuation of human civilization and culture. This theory also raises further questions of what brain structures are required for consciousness to occur, and if other animals have these structures, what is it about those structures which only renders minimal consciousness versus our full consciousness (Gutfreund, 2018). While in the article, Bronfman et al. (2016) state that one of the downfalls of their theory is that this does not satisfy “The Hard Problem” (Chalmers, 2007) of consciousness. Chalmers’ hard problem contends that the subject of a theory of consciousness must be included in the theory or one is simply avoiding the issue (Chalmers, 2007). However, others like Michael Cohen (2011) and Daniel Dennett (2003, 2011, 2017) contend that “The Hard Problem” of consciousness is impossible to answer and therefore is not a valid problem.

Discussion and Future Research

The concept of consciousness as a byproduct of UAL is that it removes consciousness from the requirements of an evolved psychological mechanism (EPM). If consciousness were to be considered an EPM it would have to be proven that consciousness solved a specific, narrow problem which humans were facing prior to the existence of consciousness (Buss, 2019). All of which, to the knowledge of the evolutionary psychological community, consciousness cannot account for. This is a similar problem to Darwin’s peacock problem (PBS, 2001) as there seems to be no explanation for the existence of consciousness which fulfills an evolutionary purpose. Instead, it is more reasonable to consider consciousness as a byproduct, and future research can focus on the specific portions and connections in the brain which drive our perception of consciousness.

The focus of future research can be on those with brain damage due to excision, trauma, or neurodegenerative disorders as it seems some can live relatively normal lives following removal of some brain tissue. Analyses of individuals who are in comas, vegetative states, or minimally conscious (Boly, Seth, Wilke, Ingmundson, Baars, Laureys, Edelman, & Tsuchiya, 2013) may provide an important look at particularly active and non-active brain tissue and how it relates to consciousness. Also, analyzing any previous studies involving lobotomy recipients from the past when lobotomies were practiced significantly more often may provide some insight of the frontal lobe’s necessity or lack thereof for the existence of consciousness.

Evolutionarily speaking, attempting to scan and examine the brains of hunter/gatherer tribes, while likely costly and unrealistic in practice, may provide some insight in the size and function of brain structures which are either overloaded due to consistent stimuli in modern society, or potentially underdeveloped due to focus on hunter/gatherer specific tasks and a general lack of stimuli from modern societal conveniences. Evaluations of some of our most intelligent animal species can attempt to replicate the learning paths laid out by Bronfman et al. (2016) in an attempt to disprove their theory of the requirement of UAL in order to be considered fully conscious.

CONCLUSION

To consider consciousness as a byproduct of other evolutionary adaptations instead of a purposeful evolution in and of itself does nothing to diminish its value. In fact, the chance that consciousness to the level experienced by humans only occurred in one species as opposed to all or several species, such as the development of visual perception, auditory canals, olfactory receptors, and tactile receptors, strengthens the byproduct theory and the value of consciousness. We should not be fooled into believing that because we are the only fully conscious organisms, consciousness is an evolved adaptation. As Daniel Dennett (2003) puts it when comparing the similarities of consciousness and magic, “Real magic, in other words, refers to magic which is not real, while the magic that is real that can actually be done is not real magic” (Dennett, 2003, pp. 8). Consciousness, in this sense, is a creation of the various mechanisms in the human brain functioning in sync with one another, and arguably, the most valuable byproduct of evolutionary history.

References

Boly, M., Seth, A. K., Wilke, M., Ingmundson, P., Baars, B., Laureys, S., . . . Tsuchiya, N. (2013). Consciousness in humans and non-human animals: recent advances and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 625. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00625

Bronfman, Z. Z., Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (2016). The transition to minimal consciousness through the evolution of associative learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1954. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01954

Buss, D. M. (2019). Evolutionary Psychology: the new science of the mind. New York: Routledge.

Chalmers, D. (2007). The hard problem of consciousness. The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness, 223-235. doi:10.1002/9780470751466.ch18

Cloninger, C. R. (2009). Evolution of human brain functions: the functional structure of human consciousness. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 994-106.

Cohen, M. A., & Dennett, D. C. (2011). Consciousness cannot be separated from function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(8), 358-364. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.06.008

Dennett, D. (2003). Explaining the “Magic” of consciousness. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 1(1), 7-19.

Dennett, D. (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: the evolution of minds. New York: W W Norton & Company.

Denton, D., Mckinley, M., Farrell, M., & Egan, G. (2009). The role of primordial emotions in the evolutionary origin of consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 500-514. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2008.06.009

Gould, S., & Lewontin, R. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptionist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 581-598.

Gutfreund, Y. (2018). The mind-evolution problem: the difficulty of fitting consciousness in an evolutionary framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1537. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537

Jaynes, J. (2000). The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

PBS (Director). (2001). Evolution: Why Sex? [Motion Picture].

Solso, R. L. (2003). The psychology of art and the evolution of the conscious brain. Cambridge: The MIT Press.