Every now and then you come across a giant turd that's so fertile you have to examine it carefully in hopes of learning something from it. This one comes from Issue 46 of TPM, The Philosopher's Magazine and is the lead article. It's title is "The Unnatural Selection of Consciousness." Written by Raymond Tallis, he argues that there is no evolutionary explanation of consciousness.
Professor Tallis is right to question the usually unquestioned assumption that evolution led to consciousness. (I have read dozens of books and attended scores of talks on consciousness, but only once was there a question about its evolutionary advantage.) However, beyond raising the question, there is no pony in this dung pile. For example, he also questions the value (not just the evolutionary value) of consciousness. He even questions if life is the result of natural selection.
Aside from swelling the ranks of those who feel the need to publish opinions on any subject, I see no purpose to this article. Most difficult to accept is his completely unscientific approach. Tallis asserts the implausibility that evolution produced consciousness, but why does he shy away from offering any alternatives? Scientists falsify a theory in order to propose another that better fits the facts. I suspect he has no alternative acceptable to either science or philosophy. If natural selection did not create consciousness, then what did? Something unnatural? (Reminder: the title of this article is "The Unnatural Selection of Consciousness.") Perhaps even supernatural? Even though Tallis doesn't explicitly say this, he appears to have gone over to the Dark Side of Speculation — a mystic by any other name. I have no problem with mystics, only with finding them in publications like The Philosopher's Magazine.
"If it is difficult (though not impossible) to see how life emerged out of the operation of the laws of physics on lifeless matter. . .." Well, he can say it, but if he does not offer an alternative (perhaps the literal finger of God?), then he's just another non-believer in science. Which he is entitled to be — but shouldn't he at least say so? Unfortunately, he takes a number of positions without acknowledging them. Most disappointingly, there's no philosophy here, either, so why is this article in a magazine for philosophers?
Speaking of taking positions, he offers statements like this, ". . . if it [consciousness] was not there in the beginning . . ." that make one doubt the words on the page. Is he actually suggesting that consciousness could have been primordial? Why limit it to the beginning of life? Why not the beginning of the universe? Saying such nonsense without a shred of evidence (or admitting one is a panpsychist) does not belong in a publication with scholarly aspirations.
Speaking of scholarly, "Raymond Tallis is emeritus professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Manchester, a philosopher, poet, novelist and cultural critic." He may be all these things somewhere, but here his only possible stance is cultural critic. But when looking for connections between natural selection and consciousness, what we need is science. (Or philosophers like Dan Dennett, who know enough about both to make useful contributions.) Writing on these topics, minimally one should attempt to be scientific.
Yet, the cultural criticism is easy to state: many misunderstand natural selection (often for their own ends, and often those ends have included truly evil things like genocide). Lots to criticize there. In addition, and in like manner, many misunderstand consciousness. They range from Dualists to denialists, from devotees of the Quantum to the quotidian (it needs no explanation) — and beyond. Lamentably, with this article, Professor Tallis only proves he misunderstands natural selection and consciousness — yet offers no real cultural criticism.
Evolution
He says, "Biology does not tolerate anything biologically useless . . .." Does anyone really know enough about the utility of every organ of every creature to make such a statement? Can he explain the appendix? Wisdom teeth? (The August 2009 issue of Wired lists the ten worst evolutionary designs. Or read Gary Marcus's Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind.) Tallis's attitude is merely a variation of the mistaken belief that what is (what has survived) is best. It is just another rehash of Herbert Spencer's distorted emphasis of Survival Of The Fittest. Another avoidance of the simple truth that survival is nothing more than survival of the sufficiently fit.
"A deliberating creature that has increased capacity to get things right does so only because it has a propensity to get things wrong. A fully adapted organism would not have to deliberate." My head hurts. First, we only learn (note that learning can be a component of the value of consciousness) because we can make mistakes. This is a good thing, no matter the opinion of Professor Tallis. Second, what the hell is "would not have to deliberate"? Let's take a short step back and call it choice instead of deliberation. Plenty of creatures makes choices. Some good, some bad, some they learn from. So tell me again the value of non-deliberation? And in what perfect universe do these "fully adapted" organisms exist? Once again, "fully adapted" smacks of Survival of the Fittest. Is it not obvious that the organism most perfectly suited to its current environment will be at a significant disadvantage when that environment changes — as it inevitably will.
Consciousness
When he suggests "more efficient unconscious mechanisms" are "a more promising alternative to consciousness," is he serious? And if we accept that statement, how are we to use it? How can we determine what creatures possess this more promising alternative? And to what degree? Since many of them do not seem to possess our form of consciousness, how do we know their unconscious mechanisms are not superior to our conscious ones? If these sound like stupid questions, they are. He framed the situation; I'm only pointing out the logical conclusion.
"Those who think consciousness confers advantage tend also to believe that it confers even more advantage as it gets more complex." Why is it not possible to believe consciousness is both advantageous and yet — at the very same time — not more advantageous because it is more complex? (No, I'm not going for the specious argument that genius is akin to insanity.) Besides useless appendages, biology is filled with examples of superfluous complexity. But it's easy to skewer the bigger is better crowd.
At this point, he seems to think there may be advantages to consciousness: "Yes, my genes would have a better chance of replicating if I had better memory or more foresight than you." You think so? How about Olaf who's six-four and breaks your legs for looking at his woman? Not so easy to replicate now, is it Mr. Big Brain? Not that he believes bigger is better. Not when he says, "A fully adapted organism would not have to deliberate."
Now we're back to both the superiority of the unconscious mind and Survival of the Fittest. Of course, he's not so much down on consciousness as the likelihood of it evolving: ". . . consciousness seems like the worst possible evolutionary move." Tallis can't seem to grasp a consciousness that is less than perfect and still be a product of natural selection. He doesn't comprehend a natural selection (operating very much like our own minds) that's usually only just good enough. I suggest he review what Nobel Laureate Herbert A. Simon said about satisficing.
Three final comments about consciousness and evolution:
1. If Ray Tallis wants a perspective on natural selection and consciousness, he only needs one comparison. In the end, dinosaurs (who either did not possess consciousness or possessed a much lesser form) will be seen as a much more successful species — measured in eons — than humans. We are not the top of the ladder (as if evolution can ever stop until all life is gone). We may be just a tick of the great evolutionary clock. Here, then gone. What's a few million years to evolution? It's only a big deal if it's your million years.
2. Many philosophers, such as Merlin Donald, offer substantial discussions of the evolutionary advantage of consciousness. A few (primarily, Andy Clark) have proposed the concept of the extended mind, which develops from language, which in turn is clearly dependent upon consciousness. In this very magazine, language is being read and discussed by conscious minds in order to advance our common understanding — yet this article denies any evolutionary advantage to those conscious minds. We have nothing to gain, evolutionarily, by discussion? Why write the article? Because this — language enabled by consciousness — is the evolutionary advantage. Hey, wait a minute! That's actually culture, isn't it? Tallis fails again.
3. Don't get me wrong: I like consciousness (especially mine). But I realize it's only my opinion and I'm not going to inflate it into overblown assertions. If it turns out — in that very long run when, as Keynes said, we'll all be dead — our consciousness was merely another temporary aberration, it's fine by me. Unlike Ray Tallis, I'm not here to judge natural selection. However, don't try to tell me consciousness came from beyond nature. (Sounds like the title of a bad SciFi movie.) Accept it, dude, it's only natural.
—Lee Frank