https://mindmatters.ai/2021/09/did-minimal-consciousness-drive-the-cambrian-explosion/ * Mind Matters [Natural and Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis] * Articles * Podcast * Videos * Subscribe * Donate * * * * [ ] Search Search anomalocaris-creature-of-the-cambrian-period-isolated-on-black-background-stockpack-adobe-stock Anomalocaris, creature of the Cambrian period, isolated on black background Anomalocaris, creature of the Cambrian period, isolated on black background ^ News September 30, 2021 Natural Intelligence, Science Did Minimal Consciousness Drive the Cambrian Explosion? [Eva Jablonka's team makes the daring case, repurposing Hungarian chemist Tibor Ganti's origin of life studies] [ News September 30, 2021 Natural Intelligence, Science ] Share Facebook Twitter Print Email Eva Jablonka is "one of the world's foremost experts in epigenetic inheritance and evolution" but she has also had a longstanding interest in consciousness studies. She was author, with Marion J. Lamb, of Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (MIT Press 2006/rev. 2014). [Eva-Jablonka]Eva Jablonka She and neurobiologist Simona Ginsburg, along with illustrator Anna Zeligowski, offer a new approach to the origin of consciousness in an essay at IAI.TV -- one with an interesting departure from many approaches to consciousness: Taking their inspiration from Hungarian chemist Tibor Ganti (1933-2009), who posited a chemoton -- the minimal life form or protocell -- as the origin of life, they first attempt to define minimal consciousness, listing many requirements. A minimal life form must show the ability to learn but it must also be a "subject of experience." After all, as Ginsberg et al. point out, the MuZero algorithm can beat humans at any number of games but it is "as conscious as your washing machine." They argue that "The evolution of learning drove the evolution of consciousness and the cognitive architecture of complex learning in living organisms constitutes basic consciousness." Where their approach differs from many is that they do not try to identify a mechanism of consciousness. In fact, they write, The next step we took was search for an evolutionary transition marker that requires that all the characteristics we listed are in place. We looked at genes, proteins, anatomical brain regions and neurophysiological processes, but none of the many possibilities we examined entailed all the characteristic of consciousness. Simona Ginsberg, Eva Jablonka, and Anna Zeligowski, "The origin of consciousness: Identifying the evolutionary markers of when consciousness exploded" at IAI.TV (August 20, 2021) They are looking, rather, for transition markers between one stage of consciousness and the next, in terms of actual behavior. They settled on the concept of unlimited associative learning (UAL). That's an interesting shift in emphasis if we recall a 1998 science wager between two big names in consciousness studies: TWENTY years ago this week [1998], two young men sat in a smoky bar in Bremen, northern Germany. Neuroscientist Christof Koch and philosopher David Chalmers had spent the day lecturing at a conference about consciousness, and they still had more to say. After a few drinks, Koch suggested a wager. He bet a case of fine wine that within the next 25 years someone would discover a specific signature of consciousness in the brain. Chalmers said it wouldn't happen, and bet against. Per Snaprud, "Consciousness: How we're solving a mystery bigger than our minds" at New Scientist (June 20, 2018) Well, the wager has only two years to run now and, barring a sudden, dramatic discovery, it looks as though consciousness may not be a "specific signature" at all. [Evolution-of-the-Sensitive-Soul-2022-MIT]The principal authors' forthcoming book, 2022 One reason for doubt about such a signature is provided by Ginsberg's team's findings: Were a physical "signature" the explanation of consciousness, we might expect to find that consciousness follows simple rules of heredity: But when the team tried to determine, from behavior, which life forms over evolutionary time have demonstrated at least minimal consciousness, they found, Our survey of the vast (yet very patchy) learning literature of the last 100 years revealed no evidence of UAL [unlimited associative learning] in most animal groups, including medusa, flat worms and slugs. It has, so far, been found only in three groups: most of the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals), some of the arthropods (e.g., crabs, bees, crickets, cockroaches) and some mollusks (the cephalopod - squid, cuttlefish and octopus).. We discovered that although the brains of these animals are anatomically very different, they have similar functional units that generate models of the world, the body, and prospective actions, a memory system that can store composite representations, and an integrating and flexible system that evaluates and updates them. This cognitive architecture gives us a clue to the function of consciousness: it enables the organism to make context-dependent decisions that are based on its subjectively-experienced perceptions and motivations. Simona Ginsberg, Eva Jablonka, and Anna Zeligowski, "The origin of consciousness: Identifying the evolutionary markers of when consciousness exploded" at IAI.TV (August 20, 2021) If the life forms' brains are anatomically very different, it makes more sense to track consciousness by evidence from behavior, as the researchers are doing, than by the long-sought evidence from anatomy. But that entails decoupling consciousness from a specific physical structure. That's a different direction from the 1998 wager. Ginsberg's team argues for the Cambrian explosion as the first evidence for minimal consciousness: The fossil record told us that in arthropods and vertebrates brain structures that could support UAL and consciousness first appeared during the Cambrian era, a geologically short period beginning 542 million years ago (MYA) and ending 485 MYA. This era is aptly called the Cambrian explosion, because it was during this period that almost all currently existing animal phyla originated and diversified. The cephalopods mollusks [squid, cuttlefish, and octopus] appeared in the fossil record 250 million years later, so UAL and consciousness seem to have originated more than once and the first origins of UAL are very ancient indeed. Simona Ginsberg, Eva Jablonka, and Anna Zeligowski, "The origin of consciousness: Identifying the evolutionary markers of when consciousness exploded" at IAI.TV (August 20, 2021) In short, appropriate brain structures are necessary to support minimal consciousness but they do not need to be specific ones. Rather, the smart cephalopods seem to be an instance of convergent evolution -- a common target rather than common ancestry. For example, the cephalopods have a much closer common ancestor with the nautilus than with the bird. Yet birds definitely show consciousness, whereas the nautilus is not known for any consciousness (or intelligence) at all. Ginsberg et al. argue that minimal consciousness was one of the factors that drove the Cambrian explosion: Unlimited associative learning was an adaptive strategy that dramatically expanded the ability of animals to learn to exploit new environmental resources during their own lifetime. So was it one of the engines that drove the Cambrian explosion? We believe that it was. Simona Ginsberg, Eva Jablonka, and Anna Zeligowski, "The origin of consciousness: Identifying the evolutionary markers of when consciousness exploded" at IAI.TV (August 20, 2021) One difficulty Ginsberg et al. face (which would be faced by anyone doing this type of research) is that we cannot study Cambrian life forms as if they were living ones. We can infer behavior from body parts but there is much we could not know from fossils alone (did they engage in mating rituals or conflicts, for example?). That said, the team's behavior-based approach to minimal consciousness is likely to prove more useful, given what we already know, than looking for a consciousness module in the brain. It does require, however, that we see consciousness as a less material feature, even in animals, than many theorists would like. --------------------------------------------------------------------- You may also wish to read: Science journalist: No hype! Consciousness is a hard problem. Michael Hanlon reflected on the many futile efforts to "solve" consciousness. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [mm-badge-2] Mind Matters News Breaking and noteworthy news from the exciting world of natural and artificial intelligence at MindMatters.ai. ^Previous Post ^Database! One Stop Shop for Tracking Attacks by Cancel Culture One used to hear many people say "Cancel Culture is so ridiculous, it will go away soon." Well, that's not happening. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who usually writes about other matters, discusses two representative incidents: The removal of a book review at Science-Based Medicine ... ^Next Post ^6. Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? At this point in the "Does God exist?" debate between theist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty (September 17, 2021), readers may recall that the debate opened with Egnor explaining why, as former atheist, he became a theist. Then Dillahunty explained why, as a ... ^Did Minimal Consciousness Drive the Cambrian Explosion? [cnai-logo-] * About * The Center * Grants * Research * Subscribe Subscribe * iTunes * Google Play * Stitcher * TuneIn * RSS Topics * Androids, Robots, Drones, and Machines * Apocalypticism, Dystopia, and the Singularity * Applied Intelligence, Problem Solving, and Innovation * Artificial Intelligence * Automation, Jobs, and Training * Government Policy * Mind, Brain, and Human Intelligence * Social Factors * Philosophy of Mind * Technocracy and Big Tech * Transhumanism Authors * Contributors * Jonathan Bartlett * William A. Dembski * Brendan Dixon * Michael Egnor * Winston Ewert * Eric Holloway * Robert J. Marks * Adam Nieri * Denyse O'Leary * Gary Smith * Heather Zeiger Archives * October 2021 * September 2021 * August 2021 * July 2021 * June 2021 * May 2021 * April 2021 * March 2021 * February 2021 * January 2021 * December 2020 * November 2020 * October 2020 * September 2020 * August 2020 * July 2020 * June 2020 * May 2020 * April 2020 * March 2020 * February 2020 * January 2020 * December 2019 * November 2019 * October 2019 * September 2019 * August 2019 * July 2019 * June 2019 * May 2019 * April 2019 * March 2019 * February 2019 * January 2019 * December 2018 * November 2018 * October 2018 * September 2018 * August 2018 * July 2018 * June 2018 Subscribe * iTunes * Google Play * Stitcher * TuneIn * RSS Episodes * George Gilder: An Economic Genius Talks About Gaming AI * Why is There Fine-Tuning Everywhere? * The Universe is So Fine-Tuned! * Life is Fine-Tuned in a Fearful and Wonderful Way * Run the Gambit of Complexity Articles [Covid-19-worker-disinfecting-Adobe-Stock-329988760-987x555] China: Rewriting the History of COVID-19 [Brain-not-computer-Adobe-Stock-317276797-987x657] The Mind Is the Opposite of a Computer [Bubbles-1-Adobe-Stock-166934342-987x658] Stanford's AI Index Report: How Much Is BS? [Brain-surgery-conceptual-1-Adobe-Stock-271269920-987x659] Why Pioneer Neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield Said the Mind Is More Than the Brain [Neuroscience-1-Adobe-Stock-226212040-987x555] Pioneer Neuroscientists Believed the Mind Is More Than the Brain Articles * Leading Astronomer Gets It All Wrong About Free Will and Destiny * The Robot Waits for the Humans' Return -- Sci-fi Saturday * Is Life From Outer Space a Viable Science Hypothesis? * Meet Gurdeep Pall, Microsoft Executive and COSM 2021 Speaker * 6. Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? Topics * Androids, Robots, Drones, and Machines * Apocalypticism, Dystopia, and the Singularity * Applied Intelligence, Problem Solving, and Innovation * Artificial Intelligence * Automation, Jobs, and Training * Government Policy * Mind, Brain, and Human Intelligence * Social Factors * Philosophy of Mind * Technocracy and Big Tech * Transhumanism Footer Logos Discovery Institute Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence About Mind Matters and The Center for Intelligence Mind Matters features original news and analysis at the intersection of artificial and natural intelligence. Through articles and podcasts, it explores issues, challenges, and controversies relating to human and artificial intelligence from a perspective that values the unique capabilities of human beings. Mind Matters is published by the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. * Facebook * Twitter * Instagram * RSS Follow * Articles * Episodes * About * Subscribe * Donate