The Hard Problem With Evolutionary Consciousness Theories

A new proposal to solve the hard problem of consciousness
misses the real problem: evolutionary materialism.

 

Theories about consciousness come and go. There is a Journal of Consciousness Studies that has been putting out monthly speculations for 3 decades, and it is not the only one. As we look into one theory put forth this month by a guy from the Rohr University of Bochum and another guy from San Francisco State, we realize it cannot be considered representative of the spectrum of views about consciousness.

One prediction is a safe bet, though: they all try to explain it from a naturalistic, materialistic, evolutionary perspective. That is the real problem, because it is self-refuting. Conscious beings can discuss consciousness, but cannot by that fact explain the origin of consciousness. Is that not why the opening sentence in the press release admits the following? “Consciousness continues to puzzle researchers.” If the set of researchers consists only of materialists, no wonder they are puzzled. They don’t have all the pieces to put the puzzle together, and they are trying to piece them into the wrong picture.

The alarm theory of consciousness (Rohr University of Bochum, 28 April 2023). This is the press release about a paper described below. The two guys getting their 15 minutes of fame in this article think they have improved on evolutionary theories of consciousness by dividing it into two parts: arousal, then alertness. They call their divide-and-conquer model the “ALARM” theory.

Humans possess consciousness. But is it merely a by-product of evolution or does it fulfil a fundamental function? Professor Albert Newen from Ruhr University Bochum, Germany, and Professor Carlos Montemayor from San Francisco State University, USA, have developed a new theory on this question. In the Journal of Consciousness Studies of 1. January 2023, they distinguish two levels of consciousness, both of which also have two different functions.

The first stage of consciousness is basic arousal the second is general alertness. “These two stages are linked to two basic functions that build on each other,” says Albert Newen from the Bochum Institute for Philosophy II, explaining why he doesn’t consider consciousness to be an accidental by-product of evolution. According to the alarm theory, basic arousal first emerged in the course of evolution in order to put the body into a state of alarm so that the organism’s life could be preserved. This happens, for example, when core functions of life such as breathing, food supply or temperature regulation suddenly become unbalanced and survival is at stake.

From there, they argue, “general alertness” is sure to follow with many good things like qualia, because the signal from the lower-level thalamus is sure to spread upward into the higher centers of processing, where the animal (or human) can draw on memories of experiences. The animal is alert.

The authors draw on experiments with macaques and mice to support their model. One experiment tested anesthetized monkeys’ ability to wake up and sense their surroundings when the central lateral thalamus was stimulated. They awakened, but fell back into unconscious sleep when the stimulus was removed. The stimulus was acting like a switch to power on consciousness, but not all the way up into the world of action.

A second experiment, guided by Michael Halassa at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, additionally proves that mice possess general everyday wakefulness. The animals learned to respond to a sound in a different way than to a light signal. They were also able to interpret a third signal that told them whether to focus on the sound or the light signal. “Seeing as the mice were able to learn this quickly, it is evident that they’ve mastered learning with focused conscious attention and thus possess general alertness,” concludes Albert Newen. Other areas of the thalamus were significantly involved, namely the activation of a core area, the nucleus reticularis. The alarm theory of consciousness has filled in a gap of major rival theories of consciousness – the so-called global workspace theory of the brain and the information integration theory – which attribute only an insignificant role to the thalamus.

The experiments are interesting, but do they explain what consciousness is? Can consciousness be reduced to arousal and alertness? Is human consciousness the same as the responses of macaques and mice to stimuli targeting specific parts of their brains? Think of poking a dog’s foot with a needle while it is sleeping. It wakes up suddenly (arousal), and begins barking or whimpering (alertness). Is it ready to do philosophy and write a scientific paper about consciousness?

The Model Developed

The ALARM Theory of Consciousness: A Two-Level Theory of Phenomenal Consciousness by Newen and Montemayor. Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 30, Numbers 3-4, 2023, pp. 84-105(22). The open-access paper can be downloaded as a PDF.

One thing is clear from their paper: only evolutionary models need apply.

We argue that almost all available theories of phenomenal consciousness, both philosophical and scientific, need some additions or modifications because they do not jointly meet the four criteria of adequacy for any theory of consciousness, which we present now. They are the result of a more precise way of formulating the principles discussed above. The first criterion of adequacy (C1: functional role) is that a thorough explanation of consciousness should include a clear evolutionary functional role for consciousness associated with survival as well as a synchronic functional role associated with the actual cognitive advantages afforded by conscious experiences. While some theories are useful in providing evolutionary explanations, none of them explicitly addresses evolutionary functions and only a few discuss specific advantages of being capable of conscious awareness at a point in time.

‘But ours’ (ahem, ahem) ‘does,’ they affirm with confidence. Their model explains functional advantages to consciousness, they say, assuming that natural selection would certainly preserve them; otherwise, the organism would not survive, would it? By dividing the problem of consciousness into two parts—arousal and alertness—they find selective advantages for both.

ALARM’s central distinction between two levels of consciousness, namely basic awareness and general alertness, is proven to be adequate and epistemically fruitful, based on four perspectives with which we address the four criteria of adequacy: the evolutionary and synchronic functional perspective, the behavioural perspective, the neural processing perspective, and the phenomenological perspective.

Their four criteria are all materialistic. What they offer is purely evolutionary. It also draws on the “reptilian brain” theory (see Dr Jerry Bergman’s refutation of this as a discredited notion, 5 November 2021).

From the evolutionary and synchronic functional perspective (criterion C1), we can distinguish two roles of consciousness: one for evolutionarily older brain systems and an additional one for evolutionarily younger cortical structures. The evolutionarily old functional role of basic awareness is to trigger an alarm signal in the biological system which can then start immediate survival reaction programs. The evolutionarily younger (synchronic) functional role of general alertness is to enable or accelerate specific learning processes by selecting contexts and associating contents…. The evolutionary functional role of consciousness is not to enable us to have a better knowledge of our mental life (inwards-directed self-awareness) but to better inform us about challenges for the body in a given environment (outwards-directed sensitivity to a cause of the experience).

But is consciousness necessary for any of those functions? We have seen that ChatGPT can do all these things, yet nobody thinks artificial intelligence (AI) is really conscious. Even if one assumes that Darwin’s Stuff Happens Law is capable of generating cortical structures, signals and learning, consciousness is something qualitatively different from all those things. How do they account for it?

Although such reaction patterns can in principle be realized without basic awareness in a biological system, it is an important advantage if it is connected with basic awareness since, for example, intense pain experience is a general indicator of a survival threat for multiple and new situations and the basic awareness remains for some temporal extension triggering a caring for one’s body even after the immediate challenge is removed. Thus, the reactive patterns, e.g. in the case of touching a hot stovetop, develop beyond the immediate automatic withdrawal of the hand into a continuing caring for the hand in addition to changing the behavioural pattern in relation to the stovetop.

This explanation sounds reasonable until you think about it. It draws on the notion that ‘where there is a need, Darwin provides.’ According to this world picture, organisms are like customers in a restaurant, thinking about what they would like to order. ‘I think I’ll have some arousal,’ the lizard says. ‘Some basic awareness would be good for my health,’ the mouse says. ‘Coming right up!’ Darwin says. The cook in the kitchen adds some random mutations to the soup, and Darwin selects the bowl and utensils and serves it to the customers. Does that make sense? Of course not. Nor does it make sense to believe that mutations and natural selection will come forth to provide any advantage to any organism by a blind, uncaring, unguided natural process. ‘But if the mouse doesn’t get its awareness, it will not survive!’ the evolutionary philosopher complains. Too bad. Tough luck. Extinction is much more likely in Darwin’s uncaring universe than overcoming immense probabilistic hurdles to build the simplest protein, tissue, or organ. Needs to not provide their own means.

The Coup Sans Grace

Here’s where all evolutionary explanations for consciousness shoot themselves in the foot. Nothing about writing philosophical papers about consciousness has any ‘selective advantage’ for anyone. So why do they engage in it? Is it some sort of pleasure stimulus for them, or do they really believe that the pursuit of truth is a morally good pastime? If so, they are plagiarizing Christian principles.

If Newen and Montemayor really believe in evolution, we have every reason to distrust everything they say, because either they are trying to fool us to increase their own fitness, or (worse) their selfish genes are manipulating them like marionettes. Are blind, unguided neural forces nudging them to write papers on the nature of consciousness? For what purpose? Truth is not a concern where survival is the highest value; much less is morality. Why listen to products of natural selection? It’s all an illusion. [Cue sound of implosion.]

The “hard problem” of consciousness is that zombies can do all these things described by Newen and Montemayor. Philosophical zombies (not the movie kind, but theoretical constructs) can be aroused and behave in ways that, to all appearances, act generally alert, and yet not be conscious. Consciousness is something more than sensation, arousal, alertness, response to stimuli, and learning. It seems superfluous and unnecessary for survival. See philosopher David Chalmers discuss this quandary; see also this must-watch interview of Chalmers with Robert Lawrence Kuhn. Also recommended: “What is Consciousness?” by neuroscientist Michael Egnor.

The Biblical worldview explains consciousness. Based on the truism that out of nothing, nothing comes, the source of consciousness must be conscious. God, being conscious and supremely self-aware, breathed into the first man the ‘breath of life’ and he became a living soul, as did his counterpart (woman) derived from him. Prior to the creation of man, many animals and plants were made, given life, instincts and bodies able to reproduce after their kind. Presumably there were many individual whales of their kind, many fruit trees of their kind, many beetles of their kind, many pelicans of their kind, and so on, because the lands and seas were filled with these creatures on the days they were created.

Only humanity began as a single pair that was endowed with the image of God. The exceptionalism and uniqueness of our conscious minds stem from the imago dei given to human beings alone. Our free will, love of beauty, ability to create music and art and solve puzzles, our longing for meaning, ability to fathom concepts in math and prove logical statements, our conscience, and our awareness of God through his works belong to each of us individually and as a species. So do what makes sense: consciously reject materialism. Consciously repent of your sins. Consciously embrace the free gift of God, who loved us so much he became one of us, took on our guilt, and paid for it all.

In your heart, you know that what Chalmers said was true: your own consciousness is the best thing you know about yourself, and the most impossible thing to doubt. Consciousness does not stop when the material body wears out. Because of what Jesus did for us, we can experience joyful conscious experience and relationship forever with the one who made us for Himself, and with all the other image-bearers who have trusted in Him since creation. Follow the signposts.