#242 Nicholas Humphrey: The Psychology Of Consciousness And Intelligence

------------------Support the channel------------

------------------Follow me on---------------------

Dr. Nicholas Humphrey is Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the London School of Economics, Visiting Professor of Philosophy at the New College of the Humanities, and Senior Member at Darwin College, Cambridge. Dr. Humphrey is a theoretical psychologist, who is known for his work on the evolution of human intelligence and consciousness. His interests are wide ranging. He studied mountain gorillas with Dian Fossey in Rwanda, he was the first to demonstrate the existence of “blindsight” after brain damage in monkeys, he proposed the celebrated theory of the "social function of intellect", and he is the only scientist ever to edit the literary journal Granta. His books include Consciousness Regained, The Inner Eye, A History of the Mind, Leaps of Faith, The Mind Made Flesh, Seeing Red and, most recently, Soul Dust. He has been the recipient of several honors, including the Martin Luther King Memorial Prize, the British Psychological Society’s book award, the Pufendorf Medal, and the International Mind and Brain Prize.

In this episode, we talk about the evolution of consciousness and intelligence. We start with consciousness, and discuss the fact that it does not have a universal definition, and if that’s problematic; evolutionary approaches to it; the self; if we should take people’s reports of their own consciousness seriously; if any version of mind-brain dualism can still be relevant; if we can know for sure that other animals are conscious, and what we can learn from their behavior. We then also discuss the evolution of intelligence, and the importance of social life both for consciousness and intelligence. Finally, Dr. Humphrey gives us his account of the evolution of suicide, and its relationship with consciousness.

Time Links:
01:28 Do we need to have a unanimous definition of “consciousness”?
04:06 Evolutionary approaches to consciousness
10:30 The self
12:56 Should we take people’s reports about their minds seriously?
16:08 Is there any relevant version of mind-brain dualism?
19:18 Can we know if other animals are conscious?
23:28 Could we zombies and still behave the same way?
28:07 Behavior as evidence for consciousness
31:27 Could consciousness have been just a by-product of evolution?
34:22 Consciousness in the context of social life
36:19 The evolution of intelligence
47:40 Consciousness and the evolution of suicide
57:29 Follow Dr. Humphrey’s work!
--
Follow Dr. Humphrey’s work:
--
A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, SCIMED, PER HELGE HAAKSTD LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, RUI BELEZA, ANTÓNIO CUNHA, CHANTEL GELINAS, JERRY MULLER, FRANCIS FORDE, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BRIAN RIVERA, ADRIANO ANDRADE, YEVHEN BODRENKO, SERGIU CODREANU, ADAM BJERRE, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, AIRES ALMEIDA, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, JOHN CONNORS, VEGA GIDEY, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, DAVID DIAS, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, AND ADAM KESSEL!
A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, ROSEY, AND JIM FRANK!

I also leave you with the link to a recent montage video I did with the interviews I have released until the end of June 2018:

And check out my playlists on:

#TheDissenter #NicholasHumphrey #EvolutionaryPsychology #Consciousness

[WackyConundrum]

When dr Humphrey explains why he thinks that non-human animals most likely don't have phenomenal consciousness he points to an alleged lack of evidence that they have required capacities. He says that their behavior doesn't suggest they are [phenomenally] conscious. They don't ponder consciousness. They seemingly don't treat each other as persons. They don't develop complex culture, etc. So he says that we don't have behavioral and cognitive evidence for non-human animal phenomenal consciousness.
On the other hand when talking about humans, he seems to be saying that culture or language don't necessarily point to consciousness, but what does make a difference is the sense of self and treating other humans as persons - as other selves. But all this is a cognitive faculty! This is high intelligence - capacity to model other members of one's species as complex minds, the capacity to model oneself as a self using a narrative tool - language. These are all behavioral and cognitive pieces of evidence.
So the contradiction is clear. Humphrey uses one standard to cut off non-human animals, but he uses the same standard to hold humans in unique position. And he doesn't seem to be aware of this.

[WackyConundrum]

When Humphrey started to talk about why people generally tend not to commit suicide you should have pushed on this issue hard, Ricardo. Obviously most people who commit suicide are not capable of seeing "beauty in the world, " but are rather in prolonged physical or psychological pain (cancer, depression, other mental issues) or are being hit by a sudden, acute event (loss of a loved one, loss of home).

[WackyConundrum]

The question of suicide in the context of evolution is very interesting. Why has it evolved? How can it be explained in evolutionary terms (mainly focusing on the selection aspect)?
Maybe rather than trying to force everything into a possible positive adaptation (feature that does something good for the genes), we could try to look at the phenomenon as a failure of adaptation. For example there were no evolutionary pressures for animals to have a "feature" of being able to get addicted to crack or opioids. This seems to be a failure in some otherwise normally functioning system. Similarly in the case of suicide, as was mentioned briefly in the interview, it could be an overreaction of the need of an organism to escape the bad conditions of life. It would be very interesting to know if there is some serious work on this topic going on.

[lau-guerreiro]

A possible explanation for how suicide can be a positive adaptation arises when you think of a group of a few dozen primitive humans, with scarce food that takes a lot of effort to acquire. If, for some reason, you become a burden on the group (you consume more than you provide), and/or reduce their agility in dangerous situations, then you are putting the entire group (and your kin) in danger. They may be better off without you.

In fact, it's not uncommon for suicidal people to think that they're causing other people to suffer, and that the solution is to commit suicide.

We all need to feel useful/needed, and people who lose their jobs and have little prospect of getting a new one frequently become depressed. Imagine a hunter who sustains an injury that permanently prevents him from hunting - he is likely to become depressed.

A hunter who isn't injured but is severely depressed won't want to go hunting, and will then become a burden, and see suicide as a positive for his kin.

Without painkillers and modern medicine there must have been many situations where people were in a lot of pain with no prospect of improvement. How do primitive tribes handle this now? What do they do with their elderly people?