How to Live in the Moment: The Methodology and Limitations of Evolutionary Research on Consciousness

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Christian R. de Weerd, Leonard Dung
{"title":"How to Live in the Moment: The Methodology and Limitations of Evolutionary Research on Consciousness","authors":"Christian R. de Weerd,&nbsp;Leonard Dung","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is much interest in investigating the <i>evolution question</i>: How did consciousness evolve? In this paper, we evaluate the role that evolutionary considerations can play in <i>justifying</i> (i.e., confirming or falsifying) hypotheses about the origin, nature, and function of consciousness. Specifically, we argue against what we call <i>evolution-first approaches to consciousness</i>, according to which evolutionary considerations provide the primary and foundational lens through which we should assess hypotheses about the nature, function, or distribution of consciousness. Based on the example of Walter Veit's account and additional reasoning, we contend that evolution-first approaches struggle to provide compelling empirical evidence for their key claims about consciousness. In contrast with these approaches, we argue that consciousness science needs to foundationally rely on experimental and observational evidence from humans and other present-day animals. If our arguments succeed, then researchers, when investigating consciousness, are better advised to take as their primary source of evidence consciousness’ present, not its past. Having said this, we acknowledge that evolutionary thinking plays an important role in consciousness science. We delineate this role by stressing several ways in which evolutionary considerations can substantially help advance consciousness research, although in a manner that avoids the evolution-first approach. Since our argument only concerns the assessment of hypotheses (the “context of justification”), it leaves it open which role evolutionary considerations play in generating hypotheses (the “context of discovery”). That is, evolutionary considerations may nevertheless play a foundational role in hypothesis generation in consciousness science.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"49 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70053","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70053","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is much interest in investigating the evolution question: How did consciousness evolve? In this paper, we evaluate the role that evolutionary considerations can play in justifying (i.e., confirming or falsifying) hypotheses about the origin, nature, and function of consciousness. Specifically, we argue against what we call evolution-first approaches to consciousness, according to which evolutionary considerations provide the primary and foundational lens through which we should assess hypotheses about the nature, function, or distribution of consciousness. Based on the example of Walter Veit's account and additional reasoning, we contend that evolution-first approaches struggle to provide compelling empirical evidence for their key claims about consciousness. In contrast with these approaches, we argue that consciousness science needs to foundationally rely on experimental and observational evidence from humans and other present-day animals. If our arguments succeed, then researchers, when investigating consciousness, are better advised to take as their primary source of evidence consciousness’ present, not its past. Having said this, we acknowledge that evolutionary thinking plays an important role in consciousness science. We delineate this role by stressing several ways in which evolutionary considerations can substantially help advance consciousness research, although in a manner that avoids the evolution-first approach. Since our argument only concerns the assessment of hypotheses (the “context of justification”), it leaves it open which role evolutionary considerations play in generating hypotheses (the “context of discovery”). That is, evolutionary considerations may nevertheless play a foundational role in hypothesis generation in consciousness science.

如何活在当下:意识进化研究的方法论与局限性
人们对研究进化问题很感兴趣:意识是如何进化的?在本文中,我们评估了进化考虑在证明(即确认或证伪)关于意识的起源、性质和功能的假设中所起的作用。具体来说,我们反对所谓的“进化优先”的意识研究方法,根据这种方法,进化的考虑为我们提供了主要和基本的视角,通过这种视角,我们应该评估关于意识的本质、功能或分布的假设。基于Walter Veit的例子和额外的推理,我们认为进化优先的方法很难为他们关于意识的关键主张提供令人信服的经验证据。与这些方法相反,我们认为意识科学需要从根本上依赖于人类和其他现代动物的实验和观察证据。如果我们的论点成功了,那么研究人员在研究意识时,最好把意识的现在而不是过去作为他们的主要证据来源。话虽如此,我们承认进化思维在意识科学中扮演着重要的角色。我们通过强调几种方式来描述这一角色,在这些方式中,进化考虑可以极大地帮助推进意识研究,尽管在某种程度上避免了进化第一的方法。既然我们的论证只涉及对假设的评估(“证明的背景”),那么进化论考虑在产生假设(“发现的背景”)中扮演的角色就没有定论了。也就是说,在意识科学的假设生成中,进化论的考虑可能仍然发挥着基础作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信