The Evolution of Consciousness

A Creationist refers me to a book by the biologist Douglas Joel Futuyma http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0878931872

The Creationist thought this book supported the idea that evolution did not account for consciousness. So I had to explain...

Creationist: Evolution cannot acount for everything. And it certainly can't account for universal beliefs. Here's a quote from a book: Evolution, by Douglas J. Futuyma. It’s a superb text, authoritative and well written. 

[Darwin's] alternative to intelligent design was design by the completely mindless process of natural selection, according to which organisms possessing variations that enhance survival or reproduction replace those less suitably endowed, which therefore survive or reproduce in lesser degree. This process cannot have a goal, any more than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the present. Thus the concepts of goals or purposes have no place in biology (or any other of the natural sciences), except in studies of human behavior. (p. 282)

And another quote from the same book referring to an experiment in bacteria: This experiment conveys the essence of natural selection: it is a completely mindless process without forethought or goal. (p. 285)

JimC: You've provided a superb summary of natural selection from Futuyama. His text books are excellent. I'm hugely reassured that you're reading his work. But I can't relate your comments about the evolution of a conscious to Futuyama's text. What makes you think evolution cannot account for a conscious? The mechanism for evolution of empathy, guilt and the other things that we know as "having a conscious" is the same mechanism as the evolution of any other attribute of life.

Let's ask Douglas J Futuyma ...

Question When we refer to humans, can natural selection explain how something like the human brain, associated with consciousness and the mind, can come about? Or are these questions outside the realm of biology?

Futuyama Well, it must be one of the most difficult questions that has to be explained but any phenomenon obviously deserves to be explained. There are things that don’t exist in the DNA, which are nevertheless the products of biological processes like cell membrane structure. I think the ability to reflect on ourselves, which I guess is part of what you call consciousness or intelligence, will result out of processes that natural selection seems to favour. The argument here is that in social species (such as ants, wasps, primates that cooperate with one another) there are more and more opportunities for intelligence to be exercised.

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/LWVwgNyoeqmtnDg7oBUyqO/The-evolutionreligion-controversy-will-never-go-away-Dougl.html

I also recommend reading Frans de Waal's evidence of the evolution of emotions, which was inspired by his work with primates and which expands on the principle Futuyama refers to. Essentially, humans (and primates) are social creatures with behaviour that can be costly to the individual but useful to the groups with large numbers of such individuals do better than those without. Therefore, the "social" groups expand over time at the expense of the groups that are composed of selfish individuals.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Age-Empathy-Natures-Lessons/dp/0285640380

Here's a fairly detailed article by De Waal...

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_evolution_of_empathy

...and a brief extract...

So, how and why would this trait have evolved in humans and other species? Empathy probably evolved in the context of the parental care that characterizes all mammals. Signaling their state through smiling and crying, human infants urge their caregiver to take action. This also applies to other primates. The survival value of these interactions is evident from the case of a deaf female chimpanzee I have known named Krom, who gave birth to a succession of infants and had intense positive interest in them. But because she was deaf, she wouldn’t even notice her babies’ calls of distress if she sat down on them. Krom’s case illustrates that without the proper mechanism for understanding and responding to a child’s needs, a species will not survive.

During the 180 million years of mammalian evolution, females who responded to their offspring’s needs out-reproduced those who were cold and distant. Having descended from a long line of mothers who nursed, fed, cleaned, carried, comforted, and defended their young, we should not be surprised by gender differences in human empathy, such as those proposed to explain the disproportionate rate of boys affected by autism, which is marked by a lack of social communication skills.

Empathy also plays a role in cooperation. One needs to pay close attention to the activities and goals of others to cooperate effectively. A lioness needs to notice quickly when other lionesses go into hunting mode, so that she can join them and contribute to the pride’s success. A male chimpanzee needs to pay attention to his buddy’s rivalries and skirmishes with others so that he can help out whenever needed, thus ensuring the political success of their partnership. Effective cooperation requires being exquisitely in tune with the emotional states and goals of others.

Back to your comments on evolution...

Evolution doesn't explain "thought processes". Neuroscience explains thought processes, and how they arise from a brain. Evolution explains how our brains evolved, along with the the aspects of life, including behaviour.

Some cultures did indeed kill babies. They didn't kill babies for fun, but let's put that to one side. As I've explained elsewhere, they did this for superstitious reasons, as a way of pleasing the gods, improving crops or the weather and so on. It didn't give them an advantage and it's another example of human behaviour being corrupted when a few powerful people take control, for example a tribal priest claiming authority due to his "knowing" what the gods want and imposing his abnormal ideas on the rest of the group.

Killing your enemies and stealing their stuff might give you a short term advantage, but it's not sustainable and is self defeating, as history shows and as DeWaal explains (see above)

Blind forces (whatever they are) don't place your emotions inside you. I think we agree on that? Blind forces don't have goals or forethought (or thoughts). Your emotions haven't been "placed" - they have evolved over millions of years by the process of natural selection. Natural selection doesn't have a goal in the same way that photosynthesis doesn't have a goal. It is a natural process.

I'm still unclear about this HMFR mechanism that you refer to. What I don't get is how the explanation for morality affects moral behaviour. I think you're saying that we all share the same "moral knowledge" which is inbuilt into everyone, but we seem to be disagreeing on the explanations for the source of this "moral knowledge" (some explanations are religious, some are biological). To use your words... "My Source is God. So is yours. I acknowledge it. You don't. It's as simple as that."

So my question is this: How does the explanation (or acknowledgement) of moral belief affect someone's moral behaviour? For example, a thunderstorm can have a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. But the effect of the thunderstorm is the same, regardless of which explanation I acknowledge or don't.