From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:19:21 GMT

mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:

>emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:

>>         ... I was curious if there is any literature, articles, etc.
>> on why consciousness should be necessary to evolution.  

>??? As it stands, this is an absurd question.  Perhaps you are intending
>to ask what selective advantage might be conferred by consciousness?

Yes, you are correct.  I used a figure of speech.

>Let me again refer to Edelson, specifically to _Bright Air, Brilliant
>Fire_ for the overview statment and to _The Remembered Present_ for a
>more thoroughgoing theoretical treatment of *one* idea about this (I
>hasten to emphasize that at this point *most* notions in this field are
>more speculation than science, though I think Edeleman's position is
>fairly solidly based in honest neuroanatomy and function.)

>Edeleman's view is that (what he calls "primary") consciousness (that
>is, awareness without the additional complications of self-awareness)
>confers a selective advantage by putting together experienced correla-
>tions of perceptual/conceptual activities in parallel sensory modes
>into a "scene" that facilitates learning.  Secondary, self-aware, con-
>sciousness adds to this a view of the self and time which allows for
>operation by planning, which (given selective reproduction of those
>who do that successfully :-)) could be highly adaptive.

But this explanation is going in circles.  You (or Edeleman) 
are describing an algorithm:
"Consciousness (replace algorithm) puts together (calculates) correlations
of perceptual/conceptual activities (input from previous calculations or
from the sensory collectors) in parallel sensory modes (??? I assume
you are referring to the perceptual/conceptual activities running
in parallel -- multi input operation) into a
"scene" (conscious view? if so this is a circular explanation) that 
facilitates learning (to be the output to further algorithmic processing).

This is not what I asked.  There are many such algorithms going on
(it is the feeling of most researchers) long before they come to our
conscious perception.  We, apparantly, do not become "aware" (conscious) of 
the calculations going on in our brain at all times.  My question asked
what selective advantage does conscious perception of these algorithmic 
activities confer to a species.  I could conceive of designing a complete
silocon based automaton that would do exactly the same calculations as
I would and would therefor react the same way as I would, without
(supposedly) having a conscious perception of the calculations. i.e.
without perceiving colors, or feeling pleasure or pain.  Would it
be possible to build such an automaton?  If so, what is the advantage
of having perception against natural selection?

It is of course difficult/impossible for us philosophically speaking to know 
(experientially) what another species (or anther person) is perceiving
consciously, and this is why the area is so speculative as you
mentioned.  However, I cannot resist the temptation to assume that plants
have no conscious perception, while we, and other mobile species, do
experience consciousness.

>-- 
>Michael L. Siemon
>mls@usl.com		
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca