Atheist Admits Human Mind Cannot Be Explained by Darwinian Mechanisms, (The unnatural selection of consciousness)

[lemonbeam]

**Ray Tallis argues that there is no evolutionary explanation of consciousness
**

We have grown accustomed – perhaps too accustomed – to the idea that every characteristic of living creatures has been generated by the operation of natural selection on spontaneous variation; that it is there because it has, or at the very least once had, survival value or was a consequence of other things that had a survival value. Consciousness, even human consciousness, we are told, is no exception to this rule. Biology does not tolerate anything biologically useless and, given that my brain consumes 20% of my energy supply, and quite a lot of this seems to be used by neurones that are supposed to be responsible for keeping me conscious, consciousness must have a use. And it follow from this that all the things that consciousness enables us to get up to – not only fleeing predators whom we are aware of but also creating art or writing books like The Origin of Species – must also be directly or indirectly related to survival – now, or at some time in the past. Whether or not this is true, the ubiquity of “neuro-evolutionary” accounts of everyday human life is a testimony to belief in the power of evolution to explain consciousness.

But how well-founded is this belief? Was it really natural selection that eventually brought into being creatures that could see that they were naturally selected? Was it the blind laws of physics that so organised the matter in us that it could see the laws of physics and that they were blind? If we are going to address these questions properly, we need to start far enough back to see them clearly. We need to ask by what means consciousness could have come into being – if it was not there in the beginning - and what advantages it confers.

The zero point of evolution is a primitive self-replicator, perhaps a silicate, hardly differentiated, though exquisitely structured, like a crystal. A succession of steps over huge stretches of time, and unconsciously guided by natural selection, led to single cell organisms with their nuclei, organelles, membranes and, eventually, one or two bits of kit such as flagella to aid swimming. That was the story of life for 2.5 billion years until the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago. Then multi-cellular forms arrived; after which came more complex organisms, with distinctive organs and systems, to deal with the business of keeping the organism stable, accessing nutrients, evading predators, and - when sexual reproduction came on the scene to give natural selection more genetic variation to get its teeth into - finding mates.

The confidence that these developments can be explained in Darwinian terms seems increasingly well-founded; so let us set aside the Creationist appeal to “irreducible complexity”, as evidence that higher organisms could not have evolved step-by-step, and the related claim that Intelligent Design is required to explain the emergence of exquisite structures such as the eye. But what of the other great story: the emergence of sentience, and of more complex consciousness, and ultimately of self-consciousness? How well does this fit into the Darwinian picture?

Read more: philosophypress.co.uk/?p=485

 

[AntiTheist]

Just because there is (currently) no good evolutionary explanation for the origin of consciousness is absolutely no reason to think that some other explanation for the origin of consciousness is therefore even remotely more likely to be correct.

 

[wanstronian]

**STOP PRESS: God did it after all.
**

 

[hatsoff]

There are plenty of atheist dualists, but I don’t think Ray Tallis is one of them. Nowhere in the OP does Tallis “admit the] human mind cannot be explained by Darwinian mechanisms.”

But let’s say he did. So what?

 

[tonyrey]

Just because there is (currently) no good evolutionary explanation for the origin of consciousness is absolutely no reason to think that some other explanation for the origin of consciousness is therefore even remotely more likely to be correct.

If there is another explanation for the origin of consciousness and also rationality, free will and human rights it is far more likely to be true…

 

[AntiTheist]

If there is another explanation for the origin of consciousness and also rationality, free will and human rights it is far more likely to be true…

Uh, no, it’s not. If one explanation can’t (currently) explain something, its inability to explain something doesn’t make another explanation more likely. The only thing that would make another explanation more likely is evidence for the other explanation.

For example, let’s say we don’t have a good evolutionary explanation for the development of consciousness (of course, there’s some good and interesting science being done in that field, but for the sake of argument, let’s say we have no idea where consciousness comes from at all and that we know nothing about it). Let’s say I propose the theory that consciousness was created by a magical unicorn 50,000 years ago and that this unicorn vanished after that.

One explanation’s inability to account for consciousness doesn’t make another explanation any more likely at all to be true. The only thing that would make that explanation more likely to be true would be evidence for it (like, evidence for the existence of unicorns).

 

[johngh]

Just because there is (currently) no good evolutionary explanation for the origin of consciousness is absolutely no reason to think that some other explanation for the origin of consciousness is therefore even remotely more likely to be correct.

I find it quite humorous that when it comes to matters of science, atheists are perfectly happy with a lack of evidence, and are completely sure that they know the truth anyway, but on matters of religion, they claim lack of evidence as the absolute biggest reason God doesn’t exist. Personally I say make up your mind. Either evidence must be required to believe something, or it isn’t. If it is required, then please admit that there are a lot of things science cannot currently explain and therefore you have no right claiming they are not caused by supernatural phenomenon. However if evidence is not required for belief, then could you please kindly get off of theists backs constantly demanding we provide tangible evidence for our belief. You really can’t have it both ways.

 

[wanstronian]

tonyrey:

If there is another explanation for the origin of consciousness and also

rationality, free will and human rights it is far more likely to be true…
Uh, no, it’s not. If one explanation can’t (currently) explain something, its inability to explain something doesn’t make another explanation more likely. The only thing that would make another explanation more likely is evidence for the other explanation.

For example, let’s say we don’t have a good evolutionary explanation for the development of consciousness (of course, there’s some good and interesting science being done in that field, but for the sake of argument, let’s say we have no idea where consciousness comes from at all and that we know nothing about it). Let’s say I propose the theory that consciousness was created by a magical unicorn 50,000 years ago and that this unicorn vanished after that.

One explanation’s inability to account for consciousness doesn’t make another explanation any more likely at all to be true. The only thing that would make that explanation more likely to be true would be evidence for it (like, evidence for the existence of unicorns).

Dead right - Tony’s post assumes that there is “another explanation for the origin of consciousness and also rationality, free will and human rights” - which, of course, isn’t the case at all.

 

[tonyrey]

Dead right - Tony’s post assumes that there is “another explanation for the origin of consciousness and also rationality, free will and human rights” - which, of course, isn’t the case at all.

“which, of course, isn’t the case at all”: a dogmatic statement - whereas I specified “if.…”

 

[wanstronian]

“which, of course, isn’t the case at all”: a dogmatic statement - whereas I specified “if.…”

Sorry - from previous discussion with you, I inferred that you thought there was such an explanation. Have you backed away from this POV now?

 

[tonyrey]

Uh, no, it’s not. If one explanation can’t (currently) explain something, its inability to explain something doesn’t make another explanation more likely. The only thing that would make another explanation more likely is evidence for the other explanation.

If neither explanation explains a specific fact neither explanation is superior - unless it explains other important facts…

For example, let’s say we don’t have a good evolutionary explanation for the development of consciousness (of course, there’s some good and interesting science being done in that field, but for the sake of argument, let’s say we have no idea where consciousness comes from at all and that we know nothing about it). Let’s say I propose the theory that consciousness was created by a magical unicorn 50,000 years ago and that this unicorn vanished after that.

You are assuming that theism and evolution are rival explanations. Since the power of conscious, creative, rational, autonomous minds still exists there is no reason to suppose the Source of that power has vanished…

One explanation’s inability to account for consciousness doesn’t make another explanation any more likely at all to be true. The only thing that would make that explanation more likely to be true would be evidence for it (like, evidence for the existence of unicorns).

You have that evidence within you - in your conscious, creative, rational, autonomous mind which you are attempting to explain away as a product of random mutations/natural selection and is supposed to exist solely on account of its survival value! You also have the evidence of the progressive development of an immense multitude of rich and varied forms of life from one tremendous event - which you believe to be purposeless, valueless and meaningless…

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry - from previous discussion with you, I inferred that you thought there was such an explanation. Have you backed away from this POV now?

I believe there is such an explanation but I don’t categorically assert that it “of course, isn’t the case at all” that there is another explanation…

 

[wanstronian]

I believe there is such an explanation but I don’t categorically assert that it “of course, isn’t the case at all” that there is another explanation…

Good point - I meant, of course, that there is no evidence for any other explanation. I should have been clearer.

 

[tonyrey]

Good point - I meant, of course, that there is no evidence for any other explanation. I should have been clearer.

As we’ve discovered the written word can be interpreted in so many different ways. I seem to spend my life trying to avoid being misinterpreted but in vain!

 

[wanstronian]

Good point - I meant, of course, that there is no evidence for any other explanation. I should have been clearer.

Although, thinking on it further, it clearly depends on the meaning of ‘explanation.’

Can an explanation be considered to be an undiscovered piece of information?

Or does an explanation, by definition, not exist until it is manifested and actually explains something?

If the latter, then my original statement in post #8 is correct.

I’m not trying to start a fight - just highlighting the importance of being as precise as possible when making a comment, and also the importance of attempting to honestly understand the intent of a comment. Otherwise discussions can quickly spiral out of control…

It’s a minefield in here!

 

[Fran65]

Our genes do not need our human minds to reproduce. If human consciousness has evolved why is there such variety in capacity? For example, primates generally perform at similar levels on cognitive tasks and in language acquisition. Humans exhibit a great deal of variation. For example, IQ can vary from below 50 to over 200 (the mean being 100). Why should that be the case if inheritance of intelligence is about survival?

As a species we would survive and thrive with much lower cognitive capacity. Indeed, it is hypothesized that mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse and many other problems of the human condition may occur as a result of creativity and the ability to engage with existential and abstract questions.

It would seem that an evolutionary explanation necessarily argues that human consciousness is an epiphenomena and is potentially redundant to some extent.

Thinking out loud…What do others think?

 

[tonyrey]

Can an explanation be considered to be an undiscovered piece of information?

Yes, because an explanation is like a fact. It exists whether we are aware of it or not.
We discover it rather than invent it because it consists of facts and how they are related.

Or does an explanation, by definition, not exist until it is manifested and actually explains something?

Only if you think facts don’t exist!

If the latter, then my original statement in post #8 is correct.
I’m not trying to start a fight - just highlighting the importance of being as precise as possible when making a comment, and also the importance of attempting to honestly understand the intent of a comment. Otherwise discussions can quickly spiral out of control…
It’s a minefield in here!

Don’t worry. I’ve thought of a way of becoming invulnerable. At the end of each post we write E&OE…

 

[tonyrey]

Our genes do not need our human minds to reproduce. If human consciousness has evolved why is there such variety in capacity? For example, primates generally perform at similar levels on cognitive tasks and in language acquisition. Humans exhibit a great deal of variation. For example, IQ can vary from below 50 to over 200 (the mean being 100). Why should that be the case if inheritance of intelligence is about survival? As a species we would survive and thrive with much lower cognitive capacity.

There is no doubt about that. Our higher intelligence is threatening our chances of survival - both from pollution and nuclear weapons.

Indeed, it is hypothesized that mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse and many other problems of the human condition may occur as a result of creativity and the ability to engage with existential and abstract questions.

There are many causes of these afflictions but some of them are self-inflicted and the result of free will.

It would seem that an evolutionary explanation necessarily argues that human consciousness is an epiphenomena and is potentially redundant to some extent.

That is where it is defective because how can there be free will without consciousness?!

 

[HelenaMT]

Lemonbeam,
Thanks for a really interesting article. Contrary to what most of the negative commenters seem to think, this article was just an atheist philosopher’s musing on the problems faced by explanations of consciousness that rely on current materialist theories.

He seems to be calling for scientists to actually think through their current theories of consciousness and come up with a better materialist explanation, one that makes more sense, not to declare that “God did it.” All he has done is point out holes he feels need to be filled.