How did consciousness evolve?
I think there is a deep misunderstanding in society about consioussnes. Many people belief trees have consioussnes due to their communication. Protists communicate. Bacteria communicate. Maybe viruses communicate too in some way, even I´m not sure about that, when we talk about communication between cells. But inside a cell their is much of communication going on, infact their is no clear line where you can differentiate between communication and non- communication. Communication is everywhere and begins on the molecular level, in non- biotic material. When you think deeply about it it even goes in the atomic and the sub- atomic level.
Consioussnes has a much higher complexity then communication. From my point of view it evolved in small animals and gets bigger in modern mammals, birds and cephalopods. It evolved in co- evolution with nervous- systems.
Consioussnes has a much higher complexity then communication. From my point of view it evolved in small animals and gets bigger in modern mammals, birds and cephalopods. It evolved in co- evolution with nervous- systems.
Comments (74)
Firstly, I don't know if communication per se is an indication of consciousness meant here as the existence of an inner life - what is it like to be something. Single-celled organism communicate with chemicals but, I'm only guessing, they seem to lack brain-like organs that could think and possess consciousness. Thus the general consensus that single-celled organisms don't have consciousness. Of course this point of view is more than just tinged with materialism - some physical structure thought of as necessary for consciousness - but materialism is on a roll these days.
Secondly, while communication, by itself, fails to evidence consciousness, there may be aspects of communication that hint at the existence of consciousness. For instance the notion of self-reference - saying "I" and "me" - is indicative of self-awareness which is, to me, a sign that whichever organism performs acts of self-reference is conscious. Why I say this is because self-awareness requires consciousness (supervenience?) and so if we detect self-reference in communication then it's impossible for the organism doing the self-referencing to not be conscious.
I don't think so. You damage what you are conscious of. And in more extreme cases, you damage your identity. Getting knocked out might be shutting down consciousness. Alternatively, it is disrupting identity, such that you no longer exist for a while. Then when you 'come around' your identity re-forms. This is the less problematic thesis I think.
EDIT: Before I fall foul of Banno, when I say 'you damage what you are conscious of', I don't mean the tables and chairs in the room get smashed up. I mean you are no longer aware of them in the same way.
Unfortunately, most scientist disregard witness reports out of hand and, for some reason, think they can explain it away studying neurons. If you don't see why that's absurd, I'm not going to explain it to you.
I hypothesize that it's a feedback loop. The brain creates a timeless field of perception, which in turn influences the brain's development. It's a case of the chicken or the egg. But the yolk is still real.
How can we prove that?
Of course we do. It's all we have. Literally. There is nothing that can be understood, known or experienced outside of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is all that exists. What's your evidence for an external world OUTSIDE OF consciousness? Less evidence for that.
'Obvious'? How so?
Solipsism in a nutshell.
It's not Solipsism. I didn't say my consciousness in particular was the only thing that existed. I said consciousness in the general. This is a classic case of misreading universals and particulars.
Quoting h060tu
Hello, I just wanted to ask you if you could elaborate a bit more on that. Specifically, I'd like to know what it is that makes you believe that consciousness is all that exists.
Because that's all I can, and perhaps ever will, experience. It's the same as anybody else. Why would you believe in Dualism or Pluralism? "Don't multiply entities unnecessarily" is more reasonable.
So, you are consciousness experiencing consciousness? or are you different from consciousness?
In a manner of speaking. I believe in a Universal Consciousness which underlies all individual consciousnesses. And I also believe in inanimate objects which exist "within consciousness" (either in the Universal Consciousness or our consciousnesses, or both).
If you want an explanation as to how this works, you can read Plotinus' Enneads. Or just Wiki it. That's a pretty decent explanation. But I have others too.
In summary, all that exists is Universal Consciousness, and states of consciousness or unconsciousness which all "exist within" the Universal Consciousness.
To be honest, I'd like to hear the reason you believe this is true. There must be something that forms the foundation of your belief (an experience, perhaps), and I'd like to know that something if you want to share it with me.
Logic. There's nothing else.
a) Conscious experience exists.
b) All knowledge comes through conscious experience.
c) Nothing can be known outside of conscious experience.
d) Conscious experience is all that exists.
I know there are some people who have mystical experiences or whatever. I never had that, I've just had the same intuition that Plato and Plotinus had. That what I see and experience about reality is nothing but shadows on the cave wall. I've always thought so. Reality isn't as it seems.
You say that
Quoting h060tu
and that
Quoting h060tu
and that
Quoting h060tu
So, that which is known is conscious experience since that which is known exists; and since it is known, it must have been consciously experienced (according to b).
Could I conclude that that which is not known is not conscious experience, and hence it does not exist? or can something be conscious experience without being consciously experienced first?
No. Because the existence of things in the world are based on universal consciousness (i.e., God) and not on the individual subjective consciousness. The moon is still there if we're not looking at it. It just isn't "the moon." It's a different state of reality when not observed than when observed. But it still continues to exist because it exists independently, outside of subjective conscious beings.
I would apply the same logic to mathematical objects. Conceptual things are not experienced consciously by subjective individual consciousnesses, but conceptual things still exist because they exist in the mind of God.
Actual, conceptual, potential, possible and probable things all exist in the mind of God.
So even things which are not known are within conscious experience, but I'd say they're outside our conscious experience. They're within God's.
So by c) I mean that as an ontological statement, not as a epistemological one. I'm saying that universal consciousness is the grounding of all possible knowledge, even if our subjective consciousness can only comprehend a limited set of actual knowledge.
Quoting Daniel
Yes. God's consciousness is the conscious experience that exists without being consciously experienced.
What limits conscious experience? Universal conscious experience limits subjective conscious experience. At least, that's what I believe. But it's also possible that subjective conscious experience limits itself. As David Hoffman points out in his book "The Case Against Reality" hiding reality and truth from our eyes keeps us focusing on things beneficial for our survival, adaptation and well-being. If we saw reality as it is, it would be maladaptive and harsher on our chances to continue existing.
Consciousness evolved as a necessity for a social species. As humans made the intelligence for muscle tradeoff, it became ever more pressing for the species to have more complex relationships: one human being could rarely fend for itself, but a tribe had much stronger chances. It is not enough to recognize that one is with another human, it has to have a connection so that it feels compelled to help. This is where the emotional center excels: it bonds us to other humans that we never would have cared for in the first place (hence, "together we rise, divided we fall") and those who failed to bond with others (socio/psychopaths) were outcasts and either killed off out of anger or when they were injured, no one helped. In the modern environment, the individual is able to survive with the basics fairly easily, but the emotional center remains and engages as if we still roam the plains of Africa, yielding mental health issues if one does not find connection. In an indirect way, novels such as "1984" and "Brave New World" recognized technology was dismantling the connections in society and would lead to a world where people "had it all" but depression pervaded society. In "Brave New World", they drugged themselves to reduce their awareness of their pain instead of creating meaningful relationships with others, and in "1984" the government made it impossible to bond with others. In both cases, people misunderstand how consciousness and happiness are interrelated.
Furthermore, consciousness is nothing special. People place self-awareness on a pedestal and screech that it is the sign of a higher-being. Self-awareness was a necessity for a species with complex relationships otherwise adaptability would plummet. There were some surprising side-effects of self-awareness such as being able to recognize the world is governed by physical laws and the ability to admire phenomena. But this was not a one-way trade. Self-awareness brought the recognition of suffering with it. Fish (as we know them) get hungry and then they seek food. It is a simple causal relationship for them. Yet, humans feel hunger. Self-awareness gave us the added benefit of realizing that starving hurts. When we lose a loved one, self-awareness reminds us of all the joy they brought us and how we will never feel that way with them again because our self-awareness also happens to recognize time. Organisms that operate solely in a subconscious, automatic state simply go through their life. To us, it might seem like a pitiful life but we carry that burden too, only our subconsciousness manifests what we know as our "selves" and makes us aware that we are living.
Consciousness is a projection of the subconscious. All of the ideas, emotions, and lessons learned over the years accumulate and affect us. The conscious part of ourselves would be useless if we did not depend on it to survive; the ego suppresses this because it is much easier to function in society if there is an inherent self-value (the purpose of religion) than when one knows they are just the projection that is most likely to survive in their environment.
Or is it? Is consciousness a result of, or a part of, the brain – or does it just reside in the brain for the time being? I don't know what I believe on that one.
The debate surrounding consciousness is something that's been doing backflips in my mind for several nights now, so I'm glad this thread is here.
So here we are, humans, and we have consciousness. But it's argued that not everything living has consciousness: plants, bacteria...I think it's safe to say most people would say these kinds of things don't. In any case, there must come a point as life gets simpler and simpler, at which a line is drawn between consciousness and no consciousness. But where does that line lie?
I suppose you could say that once you have a brain, you become conscious. But how much of a brain do you have to have? At what point in its development does an embryonic brain cross over from non-conscious to conscious? How much of a person's brain could you take away before they were no longer conscious?
So many questions and so few answers.
I wonder to what degree consciousness depends on the senses. For example, as I sit here now, if I were to lose all my senses so that I could no longer see, hear, smell, feel or taste anything, I would still be conscious. I would be able to think 'What the hell has happened, where did the world go?!'. What though if I was born this way? Born without the ability to detect that there was a world around me. I'd have no concept of language, space or perhaps even time. I wouldn't be able to learn anything. Would such a hypothetical infant have, or develop, consciousness? If you could grow a brain in a lab, would it be conscious? Imagine what a horrifying consciousness that would be.
It may of course be that simpler forms of life have a different type of consciousness. And if that's the case, what type of consciousness might a more complex form of life than ourselves have?
The question is: what is the nature of that which we are aware of?
My answer (not comprehensive, off course): we are aware of things that we are not. In other words, we are aware of things that are completely external to us (as in to be an object of awareness, a thing must be extrinsic to the thing that is aware). I know this answer sounds completely obvious and shallow (maybe erroneous if you ask yourself how you are aware of yourself), and thus you (the reader) may think it is not worth your time contemplating. However, I'd like to ask whoever reads this to ask yourself that question and give me your answer, and to think about my answer and give me your opinion.
Just because you don't have a highly developed id or ego doesn't mean you're completely unaware of yourself. Even dogs have a self, and they are perfectly aware of it.
I don't think there's anything 'being' me, so does that mean I shouldn't consider myself conscious?
That better defines consciousness, depending on your definition of aware. Simple no-brain creatures of one cell or very few cells react to their surroundings, have some "sense" of their IMMEDIATE surrounding environment. There is obviously a limit to the ability to sense an environment, and react in a manner supporting survival, without a complex brain. As creatures evolved, and competed, the need for a brain ensued.
The consciousness is an advantage in nature where complex information, ability to predict and plan ahead, and awareness of physical self can overcome simple actions and reactions of non-conscious creatures. Evolution would greatly favor creatures who attained levels of consciousness.
Even without senses, the mind could still imagine and find some level of understanding. Philosophy is learning by logic and imagination from within, without external input. Mysticism is essentially about sensory deprivation, removal of all static so that one can hear the wisdom of the universe. While dreaming, you are sensing nothing, but in your mind experience what seems real.
Of course there is something to be like noAxioms - you have a subjective experience of being you - I believe everyone has this first-person point of view which philosophers claim is ineffable.
Separately from that I think that language grew our consciousness, the word.
Well there is one thought experiment that I think about when I think about the origin of consciousness:
The universe could exist and still evolve the same way without consciousness. That universe would have humans in it but they would not experience any concious state. So they would, as we know for now, be robots. They'd act the same by calculating the same answers the the questions they encounter, like we do. So everyone in our universe would have a duplicate in that universe but it would have no conciousness.
The universe in the thought experiment would be the one I could explain better as why it is like it is, than the universe we live in. In which I constantly experience the happening around and in me.
So just to say evolution developed conciousness is by my means rather less profounded. Because what the "argument" states is, that it was an advantage to be concious. But the foundation of which this "argument" (more of a false conclusion in my eyes) is build upon the reflection of ones goals, feelings, social bondings, etc. This might not be what conciousness is all about.
Here we have to consider what conciousness is. Is it the calculating, reflecting and controlling part of the human or is it the experiencing of what it is like to be a human, other animal, plant, electron, etc. It still can also be the guiding power of what it beholds but still it seems to be separate of the materialistic object it settles in.
Secondly if you are speaking to somebody you usually don't think of what exact words you are going to say, you more or less guide your body to describe the subject you are talking about. This implies (to me at least) that the calculations needed for acting are done by the subconciousness but guided by conciousness. So conciousness is the one which experiences but also which decides to do what you want to happen.
In conclusion evolution helped us to develop senses and intelligence. But what is the exact advantage for having a concious mind? We can function without it, probably even better without it, because everything in the universe is made up of energy, so why would not be conciousness also be made energy? And this has to be supplied by the body.
So here I go from biology to physics, if everything in the universe adds up to a zero energy level, why is there a concious state, it would take up more energy than needed to have the same universe?
I have my own answers to that question but i'll leave this would have to have a longer explenation.
Imagination is made of ideas, the substance of which comes from experience. In the complete absence of experience, there would be mindless brains. We are consequence of the static around our bodies.
I really like this original post. It is very lucid and concise. I also subscribe to the idea that consciousness has evolved gradually, and gave organisms ever increasing evolutionary advantages. To me an interesting thought is also that if humans will technologically be able to connect their brains into an integrated network of brains (not in a primitive way as on this forum, but completely connected), whether a 'network' consciousness would evolve and what it could mean.
Don't be so sure of yourself.
I have pondered something similar. Cells in our brain can do no thinking, but cells acting together make our mentality. If creatures like ants or bees developed a way to incorporate all of their brains, they might achieve a very high collective intelligence.
For humans, it seems like integration with computers would be the first step, then perhaps there could be a "Borg" type collective.
If you flashed a series of colored dots on a screen in front of me, sensors could detect what parts of the brain electrifies to what degree. From this data a map could direct a computer to stimulate those areas of the brain to create a mental image.
Recording brain electricity during thoughts or dreams could give data to be played back, a video of your imagination or a video of your dreams!
Mind, Self, and Society explore's Mead's views on the social genesis of thought. As the editor puts it, "how certain biological organisms acquire the capacity of self-consciousness, of thinking, of abstract reasoning, of purposive behaviour, of moral devotion; the problem, in short, of how man the rational animal arose."
I like Mead's approach because it, ab initio, avoids the false dichotomy of the mind-matter dualism by assuming what is, essentially, a systemic view of consciousness.
Why definitely?
Because it is apparently extremely useful in nature. Humans are very successful species. They rule basically the world. Granted, there are other traits involved too. Curiosity, trial and error. Humans have seven times bigger brain than what is expected for an animal of our size. That means you have more neurons at disposal that aren't already regulating body and muscles.
Evolution means that those that have characteristics that are more suitable for some situation are going to have an advantage and thus greater chance at surviving.
Also, the more aggressive and dominant a species is, the better chance at vigorous organism. Our ego makes us dominant and even aggressive at times.
Thanks. Could you give an example of the usefulness of consciousness?
It might be a trait under sexual selection (although I think it is under all kinds of selection since it is very complex). So, consciousness (the self, your personality) might not be very advantageous in terms of our physical interaction with the surrounding environment (as an opposable thumb might be, for example), but it helps us get laid, and thus pass our genes. I think of it as a version of the peacock's tail.
Still it is a very tricky instrument, the ego. Scientists still do not fully understand what purpose it serves.
The ego is afraid of becoming non-existent. But that's the only thing that will vanish when we die. The energy we consist of will always be there.
Realising we can die, makes us make precautions.
In fact, it does not matter a bit if we live or die. We will always exist.
Knowing my ego will die at some point certainly makes life worth so much more worth living and enjoyable of moments. Any could be my lasg.
Had we evolved very differently, and not so self-aware, would it make any difference? We could all be protozoa, or a virus, and reproduce exponentially. If making copies is the only goal, why consciousness?
We know conscious beings are sometimes even driven to suicide, so it's not exactly necessarily advantageous.
Yet, I can imagine the first conscious being was driven to survive. But I wouldn't think more likely to survive than the billions of alleged unconscious beings that came before it.
Quoting neonspectraltoast
Consciousness would be an alternative outcome of the process whose "goal" is to make copies. There are different ways that goal can be accomplished, as evidenced in the diversity of life. An organism can be defined as a set of traits. The composition of such set depends on the environment and random mutations (selection); and as the environment changes and new random mutations appear, the composition of such set changes. The randomness of the process and the dynamics of the environment provide the means for the diversity of sets. Each set of traits is unique and this set defines the behaviour of the organism. A virus is a virus, a monkey a monkey, a dog a dog. Even within a species, sets of traits are unique. We are defined by a set of traits. Not all behaviours are compatible with the environment that surrounds them. Not al viruses, monkeys and dogs reproduce/survive. We are constrained by the environment. If being conscious is to be aware, and being aware to experience, then consciousness is defined by the same set of traits that defines individual experience, and it is thus a random, alternative outcome of the process whose goal is to make copies.
So reproduction just naturally led to consciousness? I guess that's what we have to explain. How?
There is no build-up to awareness. You're either aware or you're not. So it seems mighty fortunate that the unconscious progression of things got lucky, I guess...the right molecule fell into place and suddenly life became aware. It's kind of mysterious how a totally blind process led to all of this.
So awareness does not hold in degrees? That isn't my own personal experience. When I was a child, my plans and expectations did not stretch to anywhere near the extent they do now, my recollection of the past was similarly circumscribed. I understood very little of what was going on in the world compared to what I do now.
I think that the most universal experience is one of constantly expanding awareness.
Understanding the world isn't the same as being cognizant that it exists. So no, awareness itself doesn't really come in degrees. And even if it did, we'd just have to push the goal post farther back and question what blind processes led to the lowest degree of awareness.
So yes, my thought is, wasn't it fortunate that a blind process led up to any degree of awareness at all. And the question is, how did that happen?
Citation needed.
Quoting InfiniteMonkey
If you damage a railway track then the train will crash but the train and the railway track are two different things.
Quoting InfiniteMonkey
But is it a necessary side effect and if not then why did it happen in our case?
2. When I stay in this metaphor, I would think about consioussnes not about the railroad but about the velocity of the train. We still have railroads without a train but we don´t have velocity.
3. That´s a very good question and unfortounaly human brains aren´t able to answer it.
Then you're assuming your conclusion. How do you show that the relationship between consciousness and the brain is analogous to the relationship between velocity and the train and not analogous to the relationship between the train and the railway track?
Quoting neonspectraltoast
No. It was the process of evolution.
Quoting neonspectraltoast
It is fortunate; but remember that fortunate is a human concept. And how did it happen? That's what we are trying to understand. The fact that we don't have an answer for it should not push us towards the assumption that consciousness has divine/supernatural origin since assuming that takes all the fun away.
Would you call consciousness divine if it was something that existed somehow beyond time? By its nature it may seem somehow divine, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural. We shouldn't be ruling anything out, given that we don't know.
It just seems kind of odd that "life" would blindly evolve step-by-step in such a way that it led to conscious awareness. One day there's nothing, and the next the final piece fell into place and voila, awareness. I find that hard to swallow.
Quoting neonspectraltoast
Yes. It wouldn't be natural if it were not affected by time.
I'm not ruling out the possibility of it being divine. However, the things I know seem to indicate the contrary. I am conscious. I change. Time applies to me. Then, time applies to my conciousness. I'm not always conscious of the same things. And I'm certainly not divine.
It is hard to swallow when you think it occured in one day. The universe is quite old. It took billions of years for consciousness to evolve. That is a lot of time for anything to happen. A lot of time. Unimaginable.
I question whether anyone really changes. I think there is a subconscious part of us, our disposition, that remains the same.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. But my hunch is still that that's not the case, that consciousness is unbounded by time somehow.
I think this is so cool, because I think we're going to discover faculties of consciousness we currently don't dream of. For instance, the CIA has admitted that remote viewing is real. We're not even tangling that yet, but it implies something about consciousness' relationship to time and space.
We can't continue to set this sort of thing apart into the realm of the "divine." That really has nothing to do with it. I think if you truly want to explore our universe you can't set limits. You have to keep an open mind.
"Human consciousness" did not just pop into existence at some point in brute emergence.
Our human experience must have had its precursors in the evolutionary process and although we have no direct access to the "subjective experience" of other humans much less other life forms mind has evolved in nature. At what point do you think "mind" first appeared.
My response is one of panpsychism, it is impossible to draw a line and so some form of protomind or protoexperience is fundamental to the operation of nature and present to the core and in the most fundamental units of nature "events" (per Whitehead).
Allegedly, the following is true. Elephants mourn their dead. Caged dogs about to be slaughtered that witness an example of it will be fearful. Cats... let's face it they know what's going on. :D
Birds and pigs have shown signs of intelligence by being able to solve puzzles.
Per theory of evolution it just did as brain function increased. You just realized you were there one day.
I want to say it has to do with memories. Knowledge of time and the concepts of past, present, and future. Would an animal draw something in the sand of a past companion? Would it store something it needs for later and come back to it at a later date based on if it knows it either can or cannot get more of whatever it is? Now that one is easy to refute as squirrels store nuts and other examples. One might propose a combination of Darwinism and genetic memory. Or monkey see, monkey do. Say you have a group of squirrels. A few eat their nuts right away and a few eat what they need and hide the rest somewhere. Over time the ones that eat their nuts right away and follow this example become less common, while the ones that hide theirs and that follow this example increase until you're at the point every squirrel is doing this and 'showing' others to. According to some theories this act may become genetic memory.
Mead examines the failures of the individual-centric theory of mind to account for shared or common meaning. Whereas, for the social-communicative theory of mind, this is a fait accompli.
If, as Wundt does, you presuppose the existence of mind at the start, as explaining or making possible the social process of experience, then the origin of minds and the interaction among minds become mysteries. But if, on the other hand, you regard the social process of experience as prior (in a rudimentary form) to the existence of mind and explain the origin of minds in terms of the interaction among individuals within that process, then not only the origin of minds, but also the interaction among minds (which is thus seen to be internal to their very nature and presupposed by their existence or development at all) cease to seem mysterious or miraculous. Mind arises through communication by a conversation of gestures in a social process or context of experience-not communication through mind...
From the individual perspective, this involves "taking the attitude of the other," a method that is likewise central to the works of Sartre:
As we shall see, the same procedure which is responsible for the genesis and existence of mind or consciousness - namely, the taking of the attitude of the other toward one's self, or toward one's own behaviour - also necessarily involves the genesis and existence at the same time of significant symbols, or significant gestures
Essentially it is a 'symbolic behaviouristic' approach:
Gestures become significant symbols when they implicitly arouse in an individual making them the same responses which they explicitly arouse, or are supposed to arouse, in other individuals, the individuals to whom they are addressed; and in all conversations of gestures within the social process, whether external (between different individuals) or internal (between a given individual and himself), the individual's consciousness of the content and flow of meaning involved depends on his thus taking the attitude of the other toward his own gestures.
This idea of the organic-environmental complex can be extended further though. The set of presuppositions shared by thinking beings likewise describes a functional-social milieu. So, for example, thinkers who share a common perspective on the role played by logic, or empirical observation, or ethics, all define unique 'environments of thought' in which unique types of reasoning become possible.
Mead says, "We must regard mind, then, as arising and developing within the social process, within the empirical matrix of social interactions." Social sub-groups can and do develop their own idiosyncratic cultures. But is this a good thing? Habermas sees runaway specialization as one of the main drivers of the alienation and social dissolution of modernity. And it seems evident that, for specialization to have meaning, there must be another conscious project which aims at re-integrating all these disparate - or at least separate - perspectives.
The evolutionary appearance of mind or intelligence takes place when the whole social process of experience and behavior is brought within the experience of any one of the separate individuals implicated therein, and when the individual's adjustment to the process is modified and refined by the awareness or consciousness which he thus has of it.
One might say, our theoretical (cum practical) understanding of the nature of consciousness (edit: as sociality) ...is consciousness.
I tried to understand the steps evolution took to give me the marvelous brain I have today.
One can look at creatures like the octopi, that have a simple hub in the head connected to eight simple brains in their arms. The starfish have a simpler brain.
From the bottom up I see microscopic creatures that act as thought they know what they are doing. I wonder if their brains are mindless computers, storing data like black boxes in commercial jets. Maybe these experiences are at first used to make decisions, for a programmed response. These experiences would logically be grouped as useful, inhibiting, nourishing, deadly. Maybe these become emotions like satisfaction and fear, and instincts like hunger and self-preservation.
If you look at it from an interactionist perspective this changes, because the mind causally influences matter in the brain. So every instance within the evolution of consciousness there is also an instance of change in behavior of matter in the brain from what would be expected in only analyzed through the conventions of physics and chemistry.
I take an interactionist perspective and have actually reasoned that there needed to be a first instance in our evolutionary past of a change in the behavior of matter in the brain from what would be expected if it was only governed by the rules understood by physics and chemistry. I call this the 'Initial Alteration' and I believe it provides experimental opportunities regarding the mind-body problem.
I believe it's correct to state that this question could be fairly answered if the propper philosophical thoughts were combined with refined empirical investigation. I also believe that things would be made easier if we could take the steps to this enquiry in the order that they were stated.
I propose that firstly, we would need to have an agreement on (1) what consciousness is, (2) what are the characteristics that a thing should present in order for we to safely infer that the thing holds consciousness and (3) if it is true that there are levels of consciousness between species (like what Aristotle proposed on his book "De Anima").
Having an agreement upon the forementioned, we could start an empirical investigation on what living things posses the simplest form of consciousness. The next step could be something like finding where those living things are in the evolutional map. From that point on, I believe we would have to undergo a similar process to refine the empirical investigation.
It's a herculean task, but not an impossible one.
For those who believe that it is possible to discuss these ideas without falling into some sort of unescapable mind maze: what can we objectively state about consciousness? What things are able to impact consciousness?
If you guys would like some reading material on this topic, I've outlined the essentials of how consciousness evolved and posted the theoretical framework to my blog at Wordpress.com.
Orthodoxies and Revolutions in the Science of Human Perception briefly discusses the neuroscience and epistemological fundamentals.
The Origins and Evolution of Perception in Organic Matter and The Nature and Human Impact of Qualia explain the evolutionary procession from inanimate to animate organic matter.
Humanity and the Evolutionary Phenomenology of Preanthromorphic Cognition, Phylogenetic Factors and Evolutionary Origins of Humanity's Language and Conception and The Evolution from Precivilized to Civilized Human Conception give a narrative account of the transition from simple conceptualizing to intelligence and then the linguistic and cultural human mind.
Not that technical, at least not in any way a search engine can't easily assist, and fairly exhaustive. Its a good supplement that might give posters some more certainty about this issue, which seems to be constantly resurfacing at the forum without much new insight.