Biological costs of the evolution of adaptive behavior and consciousness.

Abstract

This essay is an attempt to account for adaptive behavior and consciousness in the most concrete manner possible, addressing their embodiments throughout phylogenesis. The focus is on their biological costs, not particularly their benefits. The goal is to understand consciousness biologically while eschewing mentalism, anthropocentrism, and teleonomic enthusiasm. Throughout evolution adaptive behavior and consciousness have been embodied as catalytic molecular cascades, no more, no less. As these cascades became increasingly complex in particular ecological niches many new biological problems accrued for living organisms. Evolutionary resolution of these problems has been varied, incomplete, and fragile, including in the human species.

The biology of consciousness from the bottom up

“…Bacteria are the simplest and most phylogenetically ancient organisms known to have existed that answer to all criteria of life. They are sophisticated in that they present the same basic DNA core, the same epigenetic gene-switching systems, the same cellular immune defense systems, and the same basic behavioral routines as humans: they have dormant and active periods, they get hungry and satiated, they work hard to feed themselves, they get sexually prurient, they reproduce, they detect, select, and hang out with their conspecifics, they fight and kill their enemies, they detect and flee many different types of toxic or useless environments, they strive to avoid death, and they adapt and learn (Braun, 2015). Their consciousness is not ''relatively'' localized in a sanctuarium (brain) as is ours.…”

“…The notion articulated by several theorists to the effect that LIFE = COGNITION (Maturana, 1970;Stewart, 1996;Varela et al, 1974) can be rendered more precise and fruitful by replacing the word ''cognition'' by the word ''consciousness.'' So we prefer the bold aphorism LIFE = CONSCIOUSNESS (see Braun, 2015, for a history and expounding of this concept). Starting from our own particular definition of consciousness (above), we require paying close attention to organisms much simpler than humans as well as to all the material components of the conscious nexus, from the simplest atom to the most complex organ.…”

“…The synaptic weighting concept is now recognized as simplistic and ''shallow,'' appropriate only for explaining consciousness in the simplest of organisms for five reasons. First, we now know that neuronal plasticity reaches deep into the cell nucleus, up to and including the genome, which is constantly being tweaked by the extended epigenome (Braun, 2015). Second, most interneuronal signaling is extrasynaptic, and this latter type of signaling is a more important generator of consciousness than is synaptic signaling per se (Braun & Leblanc, 2016).…”

“…), let alone manage to do a better job than mentalism at solving any of the other traditional outstanding classical philosophical problems pertaining to consciousness. One of us has attempted, in a separate publication, to conceptualize an interface between molecular and cellular assemblies and high-order consciousness, summarized with the metaphor of the ''smart homeostat'' (Braun, 2015). However, there is obviously still a long way to go before bottom-up and top-down scientific research will be fluently cross-talking on the issue of consciousness.…”

“…This previously unpublished diagram depicts Braun’s (2015) “smart homeostat.” Details of the components can be found in that paper. The left column depicts the molecular architecture and function of specific adaptive behaviors of unicellular organisms.…”