Consciousness, Evolution and the Brain's Activity

tom111

If we assume that consciousness is produced by something along the lines of information integration (such as in information integration theory), or some other neural or informational correlate, then clearly the thoughts, feelings etc that enter our sphere of our consciousness represent areas of the brain with momentary heightened integration.

The question is, is our brain evolutionarily hardwired to present our sphere of consciousness with the more "constructive" activity in the brain, or did the brain evolve completely irrespective of what enters our conscious field, and that the more integrated information in our brains that does enter our consciousness is simply more integrated because it helps with further brain processing that leads to survival benefits. Are our brains evolutionarily hardwired to actually "take notice" of what enters our sphere of consciousness? Or does it process information as if consciousness weren't at all present? So in other words, I'm asking which of the following is true:

A) The brain regulates its activity mindful of what is present in our sphere of awareness. It actively ensures that disruptive processing going on in the brain is kept out of our conscious awareness and maybe even promotes constructive processing.

B) The brain regulates its activity irrespective of what enters our consciousness, and higher levels of integration occur in areas of processing that ultimately lead to higher survival rates regardless of what it throws into our sphere of consciousness.

Evolution clearly requires certain areas and process in the brain (that ultimately lead to higher survival rates) to take precedence over others, but is this regulation mindful of consciousness and its contents? Or does it just go on as it would if consciousness didn't exist, and the contents of our consciousness just happen to be representative of areas of higher information integration that are indeed higher for reasons completely unrelated to consciousness.

If option B is true, I'm tempted to say that consciousness would be more "noisy" and less organised than it currently is. However, if option A is true, surely this suggests that consciousness can in some way influence the activity of the brain? The brain after all, would not regulate its own activity to account for some phenomenon that has absolutely no effect on it.

On the other hand, if consciousness did indeed effect the activity of the brain, it would need some physical mechanism to do so. As far as I am aware, consciousness has absolutely no mechanisms in place to indeed alter the physical and if it did, it would be a hell of a lot more detectable.

So, is the brains activity regulated with or without regard for what enters our conscious awareness?

Its a bit of a debate I've been having with myself, I'd like to hear others thoughts. I hope I framed the problem in a way that makes sense.

tom111

Follow up thought: It seems strange that if indeed the brains activity were regulated without regard to what enters our consciousness, why everything that does enter our consciousness seems so coherent and noiseless.

However from a survival perspective, it seems wrong that uncoherent, noisy information would become highly integrated and take up "more processing" than other activity. This would mean that regardless of whether option A or B is correct, consciousness would be pretty similar in the sense that it would not contain a lot of noise and be reasonably well organised.

Joshs

↪tom111

if consciousness did indeed effect the activity of the brain, it would need some physical mechanism to do so. — tom111

Let me see if I understand what you are asking. Are you wondering whether the minutia of conscious experience have a physical correlate in brain activity that is in theory measurable?

tom111

↪Joshs

Here, I was conjecturing that if consciousness can effect the physical activity of the brain, then since the brain is a physical object, consciousness would need some physical mechanism to effect it. If consciousness had a physical mechanism of sorts to effect matter, then we could go about "detecting consciousness" through the detection of this physical mechanism. This would make things easier than if we assume consciousness to be purely some non-physical, emergent property of the brain like a lot of people think nowadays- such a thing cannot really be observed with standard scientific instruments.

So in other words, if consciousness were able to couple to matter somehow, detection of it would be easier.

That being said, the overall question of the post was whether or not the moulding of the brain through evolution, and indeed the way it regulates its own activity on a day-to-day basis, is done in such a way that it takes into account what information is and isnt thrown into our conscious perception.

Maybe a better way of putting it is whether or not the brain "acts" as if consciousness is there or not. If the brain behaves as if consciousness does exist, then it will actively regulate what information falls into and out of our conscious perception.

If the brain acts as if consciousness is not there at all, then its simply a matter of the brain naturally doing its thing and for some reason, some of the informational processing happens to pop into our conscious perception and some doesn't.

If its the former, and the brain needs to actively regulate what goes into and out of our conscious perception, then its likely that consciousness can have some effect on matter. The brain would not actively shape itself to accommodate for something that can have no effect on it.

Its a bit of a tricky one to explain but hope that makes sense

Joshs

↪tom111

If the brain acts as if consciousness is not there at all, then its simply a matter of the brain naturally doing its thing and for some reason, some of the informational processing happens to pop into our conscious perception and some doesn't. — tom111

In analyses of consciousness like that of Damasio, phenomenal experience is organized in a hierarchical fashion, that is, into levels of consciousness. These levels correspond to levels of activation and complexity of brain activity. So for example, at the lowest end of the spectrum we have comatose and delirious states, and dreamless sleep , then various levels of drug or illness induced sedation. He also examines disorders of memory. The clear conclusion here is that there is a direct correlation between level of consciousness and level of brain activity. Consciousness reflects highly organized physical dynamics.

One could even speculate along the lines of Julian Jaynes and correlate development of consciousness with the historical evolution of culture.

Daemon

Are our brains evolutionarily hardwired to actually "take notice" of what enters our sphere of consciousness? Or does it process information as if consciousness weren't at all present? — tom111

The brain doesn't work by processing information. It works through electro-chemical processes. When you've described those processes, you've said it all. There isn't anything for "information" to do. "Information" is a way of talking about the processes, it can be used to quantify the processes, but it doesn't play a part in the processes.

Do you want to rephrase your question?

Wayfarer

↪tom111

I think you’re asking evolutionary science to answer a philosophical question to which it might not be applicable. Think about what evolutionary science was devised to explain - the origin of species and the dynamics of adaptation and reproductive success. It has a particular scope and subject matter, obviously vast but not all-encompassing. But it’s become a kind of de facto ‘theory of everything’. But, is it? Does it provide criteria for judgement of these kinds of questions without falling into biological reductionism, in other words, presuming that the mind can be understood solely through the perspective of biology? Have a read of this OP.

if consciousness were able to couple to matter somehow, detection of it would be easier. — tom111

It’s relatively easy to determine that an organism is conscious by observing its behaviour. That’s a far cry from saying what consciousness is but maybe that is all that is possible. What consciousness is or for that matter what life is are still unanswered and maybe unanswerable questions.

You’re asking if consciousness can be revealed as an object. But it’s not something that is ever observed objectively. Consciousness is self-aware, and self-awareness is by definition not something amenable to objective analysis - which is the basis of the argument given in ‘facing up to the hard problem of consciousness’. You can’t stand outside of consciousness, obviously, because whatever you think or do is a conscious act in the first place. You need to see the recursive problem implied in that.

If the brain acts as if consciousness is not there at all, then its simply a matter of the brain naturally doing its thing and for some reason, some of the informational processing happens to pop into our conscious perception and some doesn't.

If its the former, and the brain needs to actively regulate what goes into and out of our conscious perception, then its likely that consciousness can have some effect on matter. The brain would not actively shape itself to accommodate for something that can have no effect on it. — tom111

There are many unconscious and subconscious processes that are continually in operation to sustain the life of the organism - like the parasympathetic nervous system that keeps your metabolism in order. But there’s also an interface between the conscious, subconscious and unconscious levels, which was the subject of psychoanalytic theory and also psychosomatic medicine and so on.

Hermeticus

I think the answer to your question is not a clear yes or no/A or B.

The brain regulates its activity mindful of what is present in our sphere of awareness. It actively ensures that disruptive processing going on in the brain is kept out of our conscious awareness and maybe even promotes constructive processing. — tom111

It's clear to me that this is the case to some degree. To begin with, the things that enter our awareness have already gone through some sort of filter. Every given moment there are countless of perception stimuli flooding our brain - but we pick the ones that appear beneficial to us as the center of our focus, allowing those impressions to form our train of thought.

What I'd like to point out here that this process of focusing on benefits is likely very instinctive, while the idea of what might be benefitial is highly individual. That is to say the decision-making of our brain works similar to any other learning - we make a conscious experience, leaving a positive or negative impression of our action, in turn offering a learning opportunity (positive experience -> positive reinforcement, negative experience -> negative reinforcement). Then, be it positive or negative, once any action or situation has had a significant impact on us, we will be much more aware and tentative should a similar action or situation arise.

The way you can imagine this working is that each synapse has a gate. The "intensity" of any given stimulation has to be strong enough to break through this gate. Once through the gate, it triggers all kinds of chemical reactions, making your brain and body do stuff. Unfortunately I couldn't find the paper anymore - but in a relatively recent neurological study scientists have found that the postsynaptic system essentially gives feedback to the presynaptic system. You could say that the part of your brain that computes solutions for you tells the part of the brain that notices things for you whether noticing a particular thing was good or bad.

I'd say this is a case of "The brain regulates its activity mindful of what is present in our sphere of awareness".

Let's examine the process from the other perspective.

B) The brain regulates its activity irrespective of what enters our consciousness, and higher levels of integration occur in areas of processing that ultimately lead to higher survival rates regardless of what it throws into our sphere of consciousness. — tom111

Now, as I said, what we notice and what we won't notice is a learning experience. That means until our brain does learn what to filter it isn't really capable of organizing what enters our consciousness. Think of a child that may be enchanted by the most trivial things and has it's attention jumping left and right all the time. This is a brain without priority and filter. Likewise, the act of learning could indeed by described as "higher levels of integration occuring in areas of processing that lead to higher survival rates." As I've explained - this is just what happens - the brain not just evaluates whether something was beneficial or detrimental, it also evaluates whether I should have noticed that something to begin with.

Gnomon

Here, I was conjecturing that if consciousness can effect the physical activity of the brain, then since the brain is a physical object, consciousness would need some physical mechanism to effect it. — tom111

FWIW, I'm guessing that Consciousness -- a Meta-Physical effect of brain processes -- does not directly affect the brain that produces it. Instead, we become aware of our private nonverbal thoughts, when we either convert them into conventional words (as in "I told myself" ; internal narrative), or hear ourselves saying those words (i.e. aural feedback), or see how others react. For example, there is an old saying : "how could I know what I think, until I hear what I'm saying?" (see quote below) :smile:

PS__This notion of feedback implies that the Brain normally operates on auto-pilot. But, when we objectify our subjective thoughts, in words or deeds, we can take over control of the system by provoking a reaction from the physical brain. That feedback loop is partly physical (neural network) and partly meta-physical (i.e. meaning, significance to me).

PPS__I suspect that people who have an "internal narrative" are Introverts, who are constantly observing their own thoughts. By contrast, Extroverts need to hear their thoughts & feelings reflected back by other people. Those in the middle of the continuum probably do it both ways. Either way, it's a feedback loop that influences the brain with it's own thoughts. .

“How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”
― E.M. Forster

Fun fact: some people have an internal narrative and some don't
As in, some people's thoughts are like sentences they "hear", and some people just have abstract non-verbal thoughts, and have to consciously verbalize them
https://ruinmyweek.com/weird/internal-narrative-vs-abstract/

Kenosha Kid

If option B is true, I'm tempted to say that consciousness would be more "noisy" and less organised than it currently is. — tom111

I'm not sure why. If you needed a biological machine for figuring out which information to integrate and which to overlook, a brain seems like a good shout.

But...

However, if option A is true, surely this suggests that consciousness can in some way influence the activity of the brain? The brain after all, would not regulate its own activity to account for some phenomenon that has absolutely no effect on it. — tom111

seems reasonable. The first few times you take a new journey in the car, it's a very conscious effort. Repetition reduces such demands. Eventually you find yourself taking a crucial turn without any memory of how you got there or into the correct lane for the turn. Some learning does seem to be learning from conscious experience and decision-making.

Consciousness, particularly conscious decision-making, must have some utility for the brain for us to have evolved brains capable of it.

Alkis Piskas

↪tom111

What's with you guys? I can understand why the scientific community believes that consciousness is the product of and resides in the brain. Neuroscientists work and live in laboratories and can deal only with the body and whatever else the can see or touch. But it's very disappointing to see this among philosophical thinkers. They have other means to deal with immaterial things, like consciousness.

Rational thinking --even simple logic-- can never allow anyone to accept that consciousness is in the brain. And whoever cannot think rationally is not a philosopher. And if someone, using rational thinking, cannot decide on the subject, they he should at least say so instead of accepting as granted what Science believes, esp. about things it has insufficient proof, if none at all, like consciousness.

Kenosha Kid

Rational thinking --even simple logic-- can never allow anyone to accept that consciousness is in the brain. — Alkis Piskas

And if any scientist should make a compelling argument that consciousness resides in the brain, she should be put under house arrest in the name of rational thinking!

Alkis Piskas

And if any scientist should make a compelling argument that consciousness resides in the brain, she should be put under house arrest in the name of rational thinking! — Kenosha Kid

Ha! I talked about the "scientific community" in general, not ALL scientists! Of course there are "thinkers" among them, even philosophers. But these do not believe that consciouness is in the brain. There are some eminent scientists among them: Deepak Chopra, Bernardo Kastrup, Menas Kafatos, etc.

Anyway, I would like to hear a compelling argument about consciousness residing in the brain ...

Kenosha Kid

↪Alkis Piskas

Oh, of course, alternative medicine peddlars and those who publish in reputable scientific journals like The Journal of Near Death Experiences are exempt, but then they'd never pitch such quackery as neural correlates of consciousness in the first place.

No, the ones you have to watch out for are those who build models, draw hypotheses, and test those hypotheses in repeatable ways in order to build consenses. Not real scientists, really, as demonstrated by their shifty reliance on evidence.

Wayfarer

I can understand why the scientific community believes that consciousness is the product of and resides in the brain. — Alkis Piskas

I think the interesting philosophical question is the sense in which the mind - I'll use that term instead of 'consciousness' - is a product of the brain. I think in order to really frame that question, you would have to form an objective conception of the mind - to understand what it is as an objective phenomenon. After all this is what is demonstrated in every case of scientific analysis - you show how the combination of substances under particular conditions cause a specific effect or gives a particular result when those conditions are met.

But then, the conceptual problem is that the mind is never an object of perception, in the way that the typical objects of science are (whether they be microscopic or galactic in scope). We can't literally stand apart from the mind or get outside of it, because it is the very organ of perception and cognition. We can't even really define what the mind is in a very specific sense.

The second problem is that it's not at all clear that the mind is 'a phenomenon' at all. 'Phenomenon' is, after all, 'what appears' - and the mind is what phenomena appear to. (Interestingly, the term 'noumenal' is what is generally contrasted with 'phenomenal', and is derived from 'nous', intellect, meaning 'objects of intellectual cognition' such as number or logical law.)

In saying that, I'm not trying to mystify the question, but rather to throw into relief some obvious-sounding assumptions about the nature of this problem. Because science deals largely with efficient and material causes - the preceeding causes and conditions that give rise to effects - then it seems obvious that the mind can be made subject to that kind of analysis also. But that is what needs to be questioned.

Agent Smith

↪Wayfarer

The observer can't observe itself. That's your argument.

Isn't there something like a mirror for that?

Wayfarer

↪Agent Smith

In a mirror, one can see a reflection of the eye, but one doesn't see the act of seeing, one only sees an image. This lecture (pdf format) elaborates the point.

Agent Smith

In a mirror, one can see a reflection of the eye, but one doesn't see the act of seeing, one only sees an image. This lecture (pdf format) elaborates the point. — Wayfarer

The eye can see itself then, can't it? What do you mean by the "act of seeing"? Do you mean that, running with the analaogy, even if the mind can observe itself, it can't parse the "act of observing"? So, to make a point, I can't hear hearing but that doesn't compute - hearing is not a sound (category mistake).

Anyway, this idea just popped into my head :point: A reflection in the mirror is, to split hairs, not exactly accurate ( left & right are flipped). To the degree this self-image in our minds is false, the observer actually can't observe himself or, to be less stringent in our criteria, the observer will get the wrong idea of himself. It gets complicated if the mind-mirror is shaped differently (a combination of flat, convex, concave, you get the idea).

One consequence of this, if ideas are left/right handed, is you'll come to wrong conclusions e.g. good will appear bad and bad will appear good, you get the picture. My hunch is this is precisely what's going on with philosophies such as Chinese Daoism & its paradoxes (attempts to right/correct the aberration in the mind-mirror) and, on the other side of the world, Heraclitus of Ephesus and his own brand of antinomies. An honorable mention for Zeno of Elea.

Alkis Piskas

↪Kenosha Kid

:up:

Not real scientists, really, as demonstrated by their shifty reliance on evidence. — Kenosha Kid

I guess this includes populararized science and articles that want to create an impression with undocumented "discoveries" ... Even Scientific American talks about the subject you mentioned (Neural Correlates of Consciousness). It seems that it is so "well established" a field that they call it by its abbreviation (NCC)!

Well, I have not read any official scientific journal on the subject, but I expect to read more about the brain! See, they confuse sensory perception effects on the brain with ... consciousness! Indeed, this is all consciousness is for them: Being conscious of stimuli of the brain! Deplorable!

Kenosha Kid

I have not read any official scientific journal on the subject — Alkis Piskas

Oh well now I've totally lost faith in your proclamations.

See, they confuse sensory perception effects on the brain with ... consciousness! — Alkis Piskas

How would you know if you haven't read any of them?

Alkis Piskas

Oh well now I've totally lost faith in your proclamations.
How would you know if you haven't read any of them? — Kenosha Kid

Don't lose faith so easily! :smile:

How many non-scientist persons do you know who read official scientific papers appearing usually in Science Journals? Only scientists do, and not all of them. But I have read and still read sometimes a lot of scientific articles from official sources, including Scientific American, on the subject. I am also reading messages from various scientists in forums/communities. But all that are not considered official scientific data, like those in Science Journals.

Do you now what a Science Journal is? If not, look at https://www.sciencealert.com/science-journal

Gnomon

I think the interesting philosophical question is the sense in which the mind - I'll use that term instead of 'consciousness' - is a product of the brain. — Wayfarer

I agree. But I also use another term to describe the relation of Mind to Brain : it's the meta-physical "Function" of the Brain's physical mechanism. In a machine, its function is the relationship between Input & Output. Like a computer, the input is Raw Information, and the output is Processed Information : Meaning. That is, the value relationship of the input data to the Self. An isolated Brain-in-a-Vat is non-functional and meaningless, because it has no Self to relate to. Ironically, the self-image is a metaphor or symbol of the body, and also a non-physical function of the brain-mind machine.

One of the most common uses of "function" is to describe a mathematical relationship between X and Y. It's a Ratio, and that's the function of a brain : to rationalize -- to reason. But none of those qualities is literally or physically in the brain. They are however, the result of physical activity in the body/brain as a holistic system. So such functions are not located in any particular area of the cerebrum. You might say that "Mind" is non-local. Which may be why some thinkers use quantum metaphors to describe it. However, those who claim that the Brain is the Mind are confusing the metaphorical reference with the concrete referent --- the physical mechanism with its non-physical function. :nerd:

Note -- In my usage, "Meta-Physical" is equivalent to "Non-physical", but in a positive instead of negative sense. "Non-physical" could be interpreted as "Un-real", But Meta-Physical merely denotes that which is beyond the range of our physical senses and instruments. But not beyond the reach of rational inference. Such functions are knowable only in terms of an implicit connection between observed Output and deduced Input, or vice-versa. In the processing of Information the output has changed in ways that are meaningful to a rational mind.

Example -- the function of an automobile is Transportation from A to B. But where is "T" itself located, and what is it made of? Hint -- it's an idea.

Relationship : non-physical connection ; correlation ; communication ; proportion ; contingency : dependence ; an imaginary invisible link between people or things

Wayfarer

↪Gnomon

Can't disagree. The mind is 'in' the brain in the same way a story is 'in' a book.

I think a lot of the confusion goes back to the 'res cogitans' - the 'thinking thing' of Descartes. Conceived in those terms, as some kind of 'thinking thing', it really makes zero sense. So the approach then became, well, let's eliminate that, and see if we can make do purely in terms of res extensia.

Miller

Every given moment there are countless of perception stimuli flooding our brain - but we pick the ones that appear beneficial to us as the center of our focus, allowing those impressions to form our train of thought. — Hermeticus

dont confuse brain, consciousness, sense data, and mind

4 different things

Agent Smith

:heart:

Consciousness, Evolution and the Brain's Activity

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions