Brain Evolution and Dreaming

Hello All,

Some time ago, I had a lenghty and fascinating discussion about brain evolution and dreaming. The website where this discussion occurred is no longer online. Therefore, for those who have a continued interest in that discussion, I have provided access here to my archive of that discussion. Unfortunately, my archive primarily contain comments from my side the discussion. Here is the first of those discussions. The comments in plain colored text are mine:

Hi Maerd,

Maerd wrote:

Nice to meet you here.

Very nice indeed! I believe this is a place where, hopefully, we can engage in cordial and insightful exchanges free of arbitrary and draconian limits.

Maerd wrote:

From the evolution point of view, conscious beings were evolved from non-conscious beings. What is your view about why consciousness evolved? A similar question is: what was the core difference between the highest non-conscious state (right before evolution of consciousness) and the lowest conscious state (right after evolution of consciousness) for a given being?


This is a great beginning and I was hoping your interest would involve an idea I expressed elsewhere. If you recall, that idea involved neuroscience and whether it can determine the nature of consciousness. In my opinion, as I have expressed, neuroscience can only explain the physical nature of consciousness but not the nature of consciousness itself. The evidence I have explored has convinced me that the nature of consciousness truly transcends the physical. I believe there are levels of consciousness beyond the contemporary brain’s capacity to manifest. The evidence for this comes in the form of after-death-contact (ADC) dream experiences wherein the dreamer could not possibly know that the person in his/her dream was deceased. At its most basic level consciousness, I believe, is merely physical awareness; i.e., an awareness suggested by the nature of tactile sensory. At the level ADC suggests, consciousness involves some ethereal form of awareness. Relative to evolution, some level of consciousness has existed from the very beginning of life—in my opinion. In my view, consciousness inhabits the physical and the structure of the physical determines the level of consciousness expressed or achieved through the physical. Comparing the nature of consciousness to an automobile driver, the physical would be represented by the automobile. I perceive the various components of the automobile as representing the various components of our central nervous system (CNS). Relative to evolution, the earliest incarnation of consciousness was like a driver who only had access to the chassis of an automobile--at the beginning of early life, consciousness had the makings of a vehicle but did not have the necessary components to properly manifest or transport through the physical. This is represented by the most primitive component of our CNS, the myelencephalon. As our CNS evolved, consciousness gained the capacity to reach new levels of expression and achievement through the physical. These are my thoughts, I welcome yours.

Hi Maerd,

Quote:
From the evolution point of view, shouldn't consciousness follow a pattern of gradual change with time from an initial very simple level of conscious state (when consciousness first evolved) into a more complicated, higher level of conscious state (like what we are today)?

From my perspective, consciousness is like a quantity of water and the physical is like a cup. Evolution, in my view, only applies to the cup not the water. I perceive consciousness as a constant that only changes as the cup of physicality evolves to contain greater quantities. In the beginning, the simplistic nature of physicality limited the quantity and quality of consciousness to simplistic levels. The earliest forms of planetary life (photoautotrophs) manifested a photosynthetic existence—a simplistic existence dependent on photosynthesis. As the demands of physicality grew, the cup of physicality evolved. This evolution of the physical enabled greater quantities of consciousness manifesting a more complicated existence—a complex existence dependent on foraging and predation. The way I speak of consciousness in the prior paragraph is how I perceive what some might consider our spiritual essence. From a strictly neurological perspective, consciousness is a manifestation of recent brain elements supported by primitive components of brain structure. As suggested by evolution, consciousness evolved in brain structure about 540 million years ago (about 3 billion years after the first forms of planetary life). My view of consciousness in brain structure is defined by the functions of the brain’s various components. For example, I believe that the primitive brain began to function as a mind when brain structure reached the thalamic level of evolution. I believe that the cortex is merely a sophisticated extension of the memory function began by limbic development. Also, I believe that the distinction between the conscious and unconscious mind and the nature of the subconscious is suggested by the distinction between the awake, sleep, and dream states of brain function. Your further thoughts are most welcome.

Hi Marcel,

Welcome to our discussion:

Marcel wrote:
I have other examples about the distinction: Take someone extremely sharp-whitted who get Alzheimer's disease. This person's apparent consiousness will decrease over time. Consider someone real bright who has brain damage after a car accident who has difficulty following a normal conversation. I'm sure you can come up with many such examples indicating the 'cup' has a dramatic impact on a person's ability to interact with the physical world. I do wonder how the cup and the water are tied? When the cup carries a given volume of water and gets damaged, does the water get drained to a certain degree?

Insightful! Indeed, disease and brain damage can siphon consciousness to levels below optimum. In my view, the destruction of brain tissue obstructs the access of consciousness to those aspects of the cup that facilitate such functions as memory, thought, and locomotion. Conversely, the cup of healthy brain structure may not be filled to its limit; i.e., consciousness may not have reached its full potential through current brain structure. When I think about the limits of consciousness imposed by the cup of physicality, I think about what may have been the distinction in brain function that led to the extinction of the Neanderthals and the rise of modern humans. If there was a distinction between the Neanderthals and modern humans, I believed brain structure and function would likely suggest what that distinction might have been. From my assessment of the evidence suggested by evolution and modern brain structure, our distinction from Neanderthals may reside in our use of the cortex and its functions that facilitate anticipatory behaviors. When we compare what we know of Neanderthal culture to modern human culture, we find very little innovations in how they lived and in the tools they used. This suggests to me, in basic terms, that Neanderthals were limited in their ability to anticipate their future needs. Collectively, I believe Neanderthals had reached the limits of their cortical facility—their consciousness could not exceed the limits their brain function imposed. As a cup for consciousness, the Neanderthal brain probably could not accommodate the measure and quality of thought processing essential to the kind of innovations modern humans have produced. If history is any example, another may yet supplant the cup of modern human consciousness. I encourage and welcome your further thoughts.

Hi Maerd,

Maerd wrote:
It is interesting to make analogies between the brain structure (for consciousness) and a "cup", and between the consciousness and "water". However, since "water" existed long before "cups", does your analogy imply that consciousness existed long before the evolution of brain structure and thus was independent of the brain structure?

Excellent question! Frankly, I have yet to consider completely the nature of consciousness before and beyond the physical suggested by this analogy’s implication. My perspective, thus far, only extends to how I perceive the nature of consciousness within the cup. Conceivably, consciousness may exist in some form that transcends the cup; i.e., consciousness may not be restricted to what it is able to manifest, express, or achieve through corporeal experience. If so, consciousness could have existed in some non-corporeal form long before the evolution of physical structure—inclusive of the brain. However, we generally equate consciousness with sentience and sentience with brain development. Accordingly, my perspective suggests how consciousness arose with the evolution of brain structure. I welcome your further thoughts.

Marcel wrote:
Using more of our brain would require more energy…Could we conceivably consider awakening all our past and present experiences and bringing them out to a conscious level simultaneously? This cup would be quite full…A little bit like a book, you cannot access all of it’s contents at once. You may look at all of a page at once, but grasping all the text’s meaning at once would require much concentration and multitasking.

Your thoughts here bring to my mind the interesting case of Kim Peek; he inspired Dustin Hoffman’s character in the movie Rain Man. Kim is an autistic savant with extraordinary memory capabilities. He can recall from memory any number of obscure facts as though laid before him in an opened book. One oddity of his recall involved the way his factual memory appeared to be organized; e.g., if the answer to a memory question involved a date fact, he might lurch into a song that was either written in a score he associated with the fact or was entitled in a way suggestive of it—as though all were somehow correct.

Marcel wrote:
…Maybe we are talking of 2 different kinds of cups…I wonder if the distinction is one of consciousness or one of brain canvas. I like comparing the eyesight focus with the concentration focus. Focussing on one thing reduces the ability to function around another, but this may be circumstantial. To this we may add the dimension of impairment that shifts a person’s comfort zone (eyesight or concentration) outside the “norm”.

In a TV program exploring Kim’s remarkable talent (The Real Rain Man, Discover Channel, air date uncertain), a doctor who had examined Kim’s medical record said that his brain did not have a corpus callosum (a condition known as agenesis). This suggested to me that the ability of Kim’s consciousness was a matter of canvas rather than focus, using your analogies. Kim’s canvas, his brain, does not have the configuration of normal or average brain structure. Therefore, his consciousness could only access memories and behavioral distinctions in the manner his canvas or cup permitted. Consequently, the grouping of facts in Kim’s mind and his autistic behavior seem peculiar to us of normal or average brain structure. This suggests to me that most distinctions we perceive between each other are likely a matter of brain structure rather than consciousness itself; we, on some basic level, are a force of equal potential primarily separated and limited by our brain configuration. From another perspective, we know from brain study how experience changes brain structure. New experiences form memories that can create new neural connections. In human studies, child neglect has resulted in below average brain development. In animal studies, the brain size of some domesticated animals was found to be smaller than their wild counterparts presumably because the experience of wild animals is richer. This all appears to suggest how genius or the expression of consciousness could be a matter of brain canvas/cup/configuration—in my opinion. I welcome your thoughts.

A compelling perspective:

Maerd wrote:
As we know, all life forms are composed of molecules that are not themselves alive. Same is true here. All conscious forms are composed of molecules that are not themselves conscious. From my perspective, consciousness vs. physical structure is like living (life) vs. "a pack of neurons".

Whether or not molecules are conscious is a matter of perspective, is it not? I think it is human nature to define “what is” and “what is not” by human standards; we judge others and other things by how we perceive ourselves. Can we be so sure about the non-existence of molecular consciousness just because it may not conform to our definition of consciousness? Perhaps we should consider what defines consciousness. As Marcel conveyed, the expanded use of brain function requires expanded energy. We know the brain cannot grow or function without energy. Every perception, thought, and feeling we experience requires and expends energy. By human standards, consciousness requires and expends energy. Therefore, on some basic level, consciousness may potentially exist wherever energy is required and expended. This seems to apply to atomic and subatomic particles. As I also perceive, another requirement or identifier of consciousness is its ability to define itself—an ability to distinguish itself as apart from its surroundings. A rock, for example, is not consciousness from our perspective. However, the molecules within the rock define how we perceive it. The molecular activity within the rock requires and expends energy to define its shape as a rock—does this not meet some basic criteria of consciousness? I welcome your thoughts.

Maerd wrote:
Do you define consciousness as energy????

No, of course not. I was merely suggesting how our perspective of consciousness, at this unenlightened stage in our evolution, could be a bit narrow.

Maerd wrote:
…why did you study the evolution of consciousness since energy (=consciousness) has nothing to do with evolution?

Actually, my interest in consciousness is merely an existential pursuit that satisfies the part of my being preconditioned from my youth to spiritualism. However, the interest enthralling the part of me that demands empirical evidence is not the study of consciousness but rather the study of the brain and brain function. Consciousness, as we generally define this quality, is a product of brain function; therefore, consciousness cannot exist corporeally without an underlying neurological structure as its progenitor. Empirically, our mind and psychology arise from the structure and function of our brain. My interest in brain evolution evolved from my investigation of how sleep and dreaming animals evolved. The clearest path for my study was provided by brain structure and how its components contributed to the sleep process. When I began to track the nature of sleep from the primitive components of the brain to recent components, it became clear to me that our ideas about contemporary brain structure and function lacked a proper foundation. Consequently, our ideas about functional distinctions and a host of brain related conditions and process could be incorrect. For example, contemporary science views the thalamus as sort of a switching station for sensory information entering and exiting the brain. The evolution of the thalamus suggests that it was the first incarnation of a proper brain (right and left hemisphere and hemispheric adhesion) marking the stage in evolution when the brain began to produce a mind. Perhaps more interesting is how the acquisition of sight perception may have led to thalamic and subsequent cortical evolution. The implications of a proper foundation in brain evolution could change how we diagnosis and treat brain trauma and conditions such as autism, Alzheimer, and insomnia just to name a few—in my opinion. I welcome your continued interest.

Maerd wrote:
My perspective is that one can not fully understand brain function without study of consciousness, as I believe that consciousness played a leading role in the formation and evolution of brain structure.

Again, I think the part consciousness played in brain evolution depends on how we define the nature of consciousness.

Maerd wrote:
I think consciousness and mind is basically the same thing.

I would agree if not for the perspective my investigation of brain evolution has provided. As we know, the brain is comprised of primitive and recent components. When we examine the most primitive components, we do not find the neurological developments suggestive of consciousness as we generally perceive. My investigation suggests that the energy needs of preexistent life compelled the adaptations leading to brain evolution. As that evolution appears to suggest, mind and consciousness are not quite the same. From my perspective of brain evolution, a mind is an environment of cognitive activity that arises from brain function within brain structure. Neurologically, brain function produces the mind and the mind produces consciousness. The clearest perspective of the distinction between mind and consciousness is suggested by my perspective of dream experience and content. In my perspective, the dreamer (as a dream component) describes or manifests his/her consciousness while the dreamer’s surroundings in a dream manifest his/her environment of cognitive activity; i.e., the dreamer = consciousness while the dream environment = mind. In my view, the mind is infinitely easier to understand and study than any other product of brain function. When we examine the evolutional path brain structure traveled to its current state, I think we find clear evidence of when and where the brain began producing a mind.

Maerd wrote:
What is the relationship between consciousness and sleep? Aren't they interrelated?

I believe dreaming provides the only link to consciousness amid sleep. As we have discussed elsewhere, dreaming isn’t sleep from my perspective. As you know, the dreaming brain engages in levels of activity equivalent to a wakeful brain. This suggests that dreaming could be a form consciousness amid sleep. Why we dream, as we have discussed, may not be as important to brain function and the nature of consciousness as the atonic release that accompanies dreaming. Dreaming without atonia does not produce the kind of restful sleep and increased mental acuity after sleep as dreaming does when concurrent with atonia. Dreaming is important to consciousness only to the extent to which we able to understand the relevance of dream content to our mental wellbeing. I welcome your thoughts.

Maerd wrote:
In my view, mind doesn't produce consciousness. Consciousness and mind come along hand in hand. Actually, one has to have consciousness to have mind…I would say that one can not fully understand mind without understanding of consciousness.

I assume your perspective is based on an assessment of brain function. Any idea we form about the nature of mind and consciousness without a valid basis in brain structure and function is probably unreliable—in my opinion. Perhaps if I provide the basis for my perspective of mind and consciousness, you will understand my conviction. I believe we agree that mind and consciousness are products of brain function. I also believe we agree that brain function comprises a concert of neural activity involving recent and primitive brain structures. When we evaluate these structures from the perspective of evolution, we get a sense of what the mind may be, how it evolved, and what constitutes its nature. So, let’s begin with evolution. What is evolution? Some of us perceive evolution as nature’s way of replacing older, less adaptive species with robust, more adaptive types. In reality, nature does not replace less adaptive species; it builds upon the successes of less adaptive species to create more adaptive types. Relative to brain structure, its primitive components are the foundation upon which nature has constructed our modern brain. From primitive to recent, brain structure is comprised of six segments: myelencephalon (MYEL), metencephalon (MET), mesencephalon (MES), diencephalon (DIEN), and telencephalon (TEL). Each segment provides a foundation for each seceding segment; e.g., MYEL is a foundation for MET function, MET a foundation for MES, etc. The neural evidence each segment provides suggests how each may have contributed to the adaptability of preexistent species. For example, animals at the MET stage of neural development had the advantage of sound perception, heighten taste distinctions, and gross locomotion over animals who had not evolved beyond the MYEL stage; animals at the initial stage of DIEN neural development had the advantage of sight perception over lesser evolved MET animals. When we evaluate brain structure contiguously from primitive to recent elements, we find structures associated with sight perception arising after those involving sound and before thalamic development. This was a critical development in brain evolution because the separate neurological sources of sensory information suggested by sight and sound perception meant that early animals had to integrate this divergent sensory before initiating some behavioral response to what they might have seen or heard. When early animals began to integrate what they heard or felt with what they perceived visually, they gained the ability to make behavior distinctions proactively. Rather than react to sound or tactile sensory, sighted animals could visually assess whether what they heard and felt required a response. Simply put, the integration of sight with earlier sensory abilities gave primitive animals the ability to think before reacting. The brain structure that corresponds to this development in early animals is the thalamus. From what we know of contemporary thalamic structure, all sensory information (except olfactory) must enter the thalamus before reaching superior brain structures. In early animals, the thalamus was the final destination for all sensory information; it gave primitive animals the ability to integrate multiple types of sensory input in a way that probably allowed them to produce behaviors independent of instinct. The capacity to engage in behaviors independent of instinct identifies a primary attribute of mind. The thalamus, with its right and left hemisphere and interthalamic adhesion, was likely nature’s prototype for contemporary cortical development. This evidence suggests to me that thalamic function defines what constitutes a mind.

Maerd wrote:
Dr. Mark Solms pointed out "dreaming and REM sleep are in fact doubly dissociable states, they have different physiological mechanisms, and in all likelihood they serve different functional purposes."

I disagree with Dr. Solms’ assessment because a critical analysis of his methods suggests he may have misinterpreted the result of his research. For example, REM (rapid eye movement) is believed to be disassociated with dreaming primarily because of experiments by Dr. Michel Jouvet in the early 1960’s. In animal experiments separating MES and MET structures from superior structures (low-decerebration), Jouvet found REM concurrent with atonia. This suggested to Jouvet that the neural mechanism for dreaming resides in this lower segment of brainstem. To Dr. Solms, the reactivation of superior brain structure (cortical structure) after separation from MES/MET structure suggested that the mechanisms for REM and dreaming are disassociated. Jouvet’s assessment of his results was incorrect because the REM he observed was the result of residual nerve impulses that surfaced after the cessation of surrounding MES/MET tonic neural activity. Solms’ assessment, based on the distinction Jouvet provided, is incorrect because Jouvet’s experiment ostensibly proved REM to be a product of the hierarchal brain activity that occurs while dreaming. Our eyes move when we experience dreaming because of their neural connection to our higher brain function. When we dream, our eyes move and our body does not because they do not share the same neural circuitry. Should Dr. Solms review the neural anatomy associated with eye movement, I believe he will find the idea of PGO spikes inspired movement unlikely. I welcome your thoughts