A New Theory Explains How Consciousness Evolved

Ever since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, evolution has been the grand unifying theory of biology. Yet one of our most important biological traits, consciousness, is rarely studied in the context of evolution. Theories of consciousness come from religion, from philosophy, from cognitive science, but not so much from evolutionary biology. Maybe that’s why so few theories have been able to tackle basic questions such as: What is the adaptive value of consciousness? When did it evolve and what animals have it?

more…

>What is the adaptive value of consciousness?

you got’t type of telepathy
but not
a what between you’n me

Seems to me they have a hypothesis, rather than a theory there.

My hypothesis is that consciousness is closely linked to empathy (since consciousness would allow much higher degrees of empathy), and in social animals empathy is very helpful in ensuring the survival of shared genes in other bodies, and that is the basis of what drives evolution.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Seems to me they have a hypothesis, rather than a theory there.

My hypothesis is that consciousness is closely linked to empathy (since consciousness would allow much higher degrees of empathy), and in social animals empathy is very helpful in ensuring the survival of shared genes in other bodies, and that is the basis of what drives evolution.

Empathy drives evolution? Big call.
I’ll think about it.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Seems to me they have a hypothesis, rather than a theory there.

My hypothesis is that consciousness is closely linked to empathy (since consciousness would allow much higher degrees of empathy), and in social animals empathy is very helpful in ensuring the survival of shared genes in other bodies, and that is the basis of what drives evolution.

Empathy drives evolution? Big call.
I’ll think about it.

He’s just an old hippie.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Seems to me they have a hypothesis, rather than a theory there.

My hypothesis is that consciousness is closely linked to empathy (since consciousness would allow much higher degrees of empathy), and in social animals empathy is very helpful in ensuring the survival of shared genes in other bodies, and that is the basis of what drives evolution.

Empathy drives evolution? Big call.
I’ll think about it.

Not by itself, but a driver, yes.

Surely that’s bog-standard neo-Darwinianism?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Seems to me they have a hypothesis, rather than a theory there.

Is it a testable hypothesis?

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Seems to me they have a hypothesis, rather than a theory there.

Is it a testable hypothesis?

Given sufficient time and a supply of conscious and unconscious animals, yeah, why not?

>(since consciousness would allow much higher degrees of empathy)

nuanced empathy I suppose you mean

Interesting word nuanced, does the concept require (willful adjustment) consciousness?

transition said:

>(since consciousness would allow much higher degrees of empathy)

nuanced empathy I suppose you mean

Interesting word nuanced, does the concept require (willful adjustment) consciousness?

Empathy from where?

thanx, updated all me security and had a look, it was well worth reading

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/

“The brain has no need to know those details. The attention schema is therefore strategically vague. It depicts covert attention in a physically incoherent way, as a non-physical essence. And this, according to the theory, is the origin of consciousness. We say we have consciousness because deep in the brain, something quite primitive is computing that semi-magical self-description.”

re this…is interesting

“It’s a consequence of our hyper-social nature. Evolution turned up the amplitude on our tendency to model others and now we’re supremely attuned to each other’s mind states. It gives us our adaptive edge. The inevitable side effect is the detection of false positives, or ghosts”

keeps is in our place too, regulates behaviour, that somebody or people might get too enthuisastic about understanding. Their intrigues, speculations, trespasses into that private.

I suppose that’s why the highly social species spends more of its time reducing sociability, minding their own business.

It’s also the way we construct human-style personalities for our pets, filtering their behaviour through a social template that really evolved for other humans.

I’ve been thinking about this in relation to my bro-in-law and dog Dolly. They used to be very close and she was always pampered and getting attention. I’d imagine that filtering her behaviour through an affectionate human social lens, she took on all kinds of endearing qualities that she didn’t really have.

But in recent weeks as the cancer winds to the end, he’s been very weak, barely able to move, often in pain etc, but Dolly has made none of the adjustments to his condition that you’d expect of a human. She was just as demanding and self-centred and prone to moody behaviour if she didn’t get her way. So I’d imagine the “anthropomorphic Dolly” quickly faded from his mind, to be replaced by a more objective view of her behaviour that was a lot less endearing, perhaps even malevolent at times.

Certainly by the time they decided to have her put down, he had little affection left for her.

Bubblecar said:

It’s also the way we construct human-style personalities for our pets, filtering their behaviour through a social template that really evolved for other humans.

I’ve been thinking about this in relation to my bro-in-law and dog Dolly. They used to be very close and she was always pampered and getting attention. I’d imagine that filtering her behaviour through an affectionate human social lens, she took on all kinds of endearing qualities that she didn’t really have.

But in recent weeks as the cancer winds to the end, he’s been very weak, barely able to move, often in pain etc, but Dolly has made none of the adjustments to his condition that you’d expect of a human. She was just as demanding and self-centred and prone to moody behaviour if she didn’t get her way. So I’d imagine the “anthropomorphic Dolly” quickly faded from his mind, to be replaced by a more objective view of her behaviour that was a lot less endearing, perhaps even malevolent at times.

Certainly by the time they decided to have her put down, he had little affection left for her.

That’s nice

Just kill the dog , that solves everything

Does it say anything about bloody minded spitefulness in this new theory?

wookiemeister said:

That’s nice

Just kill the dog , that solves everything

The dog was very old (nearly 13, which is old for a boxer), deaf, arthritic, off her food, stressed most of the time and had nothing much to look forward to, since the bro-in-law will be dead himself very soon which would just increase her stress.

Bubblecar said:

wookiemeister said:

That’s nice

Just kill the dog , that solves everything

The dog was very old (nearly 13, which is old for a boxer), deaf, arthritic, off her food, stressed most of the time and had nothing much to look forward to, since the bro-in-law will be dead himself very soon which would just increase her stress.

…and she had a very rich and pampered life with two people who doted on her. Too much, in fact, so she couldn’t adjust to no longer being the centre of attention when the bro-in-law’s cancer became their main concern.

Bubblecar said:

It’s also the way we construct human-style personalities for our pets, filtering their behaviour through a social template that really evolved for other humans.

I’ve been thinking about this in relation to my bro-in-law and dog Dolly. They used to be very close and she was always pampered and getting attention. I’d imagine that filtering her behaviour through an affectionate human social lens, she took on all kinds of endearing qualities that she didn’t really have.

But in recent weeks as the cancer winds to the end, he’s been very weak, barely able to move, often in pain etc, but Dolly has made none of the adjustments to his condition that you’d expect of a human. She was just as demanding and self-centred and prone to moody behaviour if she didn’t get her way. So I’d imagine the “anthropomorphic Dolly” quickly faded from his mind, to be replaced by a more objective view of her behaviour that was a lot less endearing, perhaps even malevolent at times.

Certainly by the time they decided to have her put down, he had little affection left for her.

I wouldn’t be so sure about the ‘demanding and self-centred’. It it quite likely the dog knew something was not right and was getting close as a defence mechanism

stumpy_seahorse said:

I wouldn’t be so sure about the ‘demanding and self-centred’. It it quite likely the dog knew something was not right and was getting close as a defence mechanism

She knew something wasn’t right, but that didn’t represent any sort of consideration for the bro-in-law, it was just a source of stress for her. So they had her constant stress and demands to attend to, as well as trying to provide a decent quality of life both for the bro-in-law in his last few weeks of life, and my sister who was obviously drained and exhausted by it all.

>she took on all kinds of endearing qualities that she didn’t really have

humans been selectively breeding dogs for a long time, we may’ve co-evolved.

Bubblecar said:

It’s also the way we construct human-style personalities for our pets, filtering their behaviour through a social template that really evolved for other humans.

I’ve been thinking about this in relation to my bro-in-law and dog Dolly. They used to be very close and she was always pampered and getting attention. I’d imagine that filtering her behaviour through an affectionate human social lens, she took on all kinds of endearing qualities that she didn’t really have.

But in recent weeks as the cancer winds to the end, he’s been very weak, barely able to move, often in pain etc, but Dolly has made none of the adjustments to his condition that you’d expect of a human. She was just as demanding and self-centred and prone to moody behaviour if she didn’t get her way. So I’d imagine the “anthropomorphic Dolly” quickly faded from his mind, to be replaced by a more objective view of her behaviour that was a lot less endearing, perhaps even malevolent at times.

Certainly by the time they decided to have her put down, he had little affection left for her.

Through another lens….Dolly knew something was wrong. You could hardly miss it, and dogs are sensitive to human changes. It’s possible that along with the doggy dementia she was very worried and upset about what was happening to her human.