From	The SAGE Encyclopedia of Theory in Psychology, (2016), H.L.	Miller (ed.). Thousand	Oaks,	CA:	Sage	Publications,	vol.	1.,	pp.	172-176. Consciousness,	Origins	of To explain the origin of anything, we	must be clear about that which	we are explaining. There	seem	to	be	two	main	meanings	for	the	term	consciousness. One	might	be	called	open in	that	it	equates	consciousness	with	awareness	and	experience	and	considers	rudimentary sensations	to	have	evolved	at	a	specific	point	in	the	evolution	of	increasing	complexity. But certainly the foundation for such sensation is a physical body. It is unclear, however, exactly what the physical requirements are for a "central experiencer" to emerge in the course of evolution. Some suggest that it would require a basic brain, others a central nervous	system,	and	others	stipulate	only	a	cellular	membrane. The	open	definition	is	most often	assumed	by	the	so-called	hard	sciences. The	closed	meaning	of	consciousness	differentiates	between	a	special	sort	of	experience,	i.e., conscious experience, and a special sort of awareness (i.e., self-awareness). This is the approach of psychoanalysis and psychology that accepts the existence of an unconscious mind. It	is	also	the	view	of	most	phenomenological	philosophers	and	psychologists	(Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jacques Lacan, etc.). This entry discusses several scientific	and	philosophical	views	of	consciousness	and	its	origins. Because	of	humanity's	unique	social	invention	of	symbolic	communication	–	especially	as	in formal language	but	also in	many	other	areas from	music to	mathematics	–	humans	have learned	to	take	the	perspective	of	others	and,	in	doing	so,	have	become	aware	of	their	own existence,	indeed,	aware	of	their	own	embodied	experience. Arguably,	a	few	other	species with large brains and complex social lives have occasionally exhibited self-awareness. Otherwise, species	may learn from experience, but they live in the	moment and have no knowledge of their own distinct lives, so it is assumed that they are unconscious in this sense. To seek an answer to the question "What is the origin of consciousness?" one	must first assume a perspective within the most fundamental ontological questions in philosophy. These	questions include:	What is	ultimate	reality? Is it	ultimately	one	thing	(monism,	say, matter	or	spirit),	two	things	(dualism,	say,	matter	and	spirit	or	mind),	or	many	things? Is	it timeless and unchanging or a process of continual change? Is the universe God-created, self-created,	or	perhaps	an	accident? The	Scientific	Worldview	and	the	Origin	of	Consciousness The most common and almost sacrosanct worldview in public education and most universities today is that of mechanistic materialism, aka reductive materialism, aka realism,	aka	"naturalism",	but	probably	best	known	as the	scientific	view	–	or, to	be	more exact, the	ontological assumption	of the sciences. Various	degrees	of commitment to this worldview	seem	to	be	religiously	adhered	to	in	the	so-called	hard	sciences	of	the	laboratory and	the	theories	associated	with	them,	but less	so	as	one	moves	along	the	continuum	into the	social	sciences. Origin	of	Consciousness 177 177 Scientific	views	range	along	a	continuum	from	scientism,	which	asserts that	only	scientific materialism	can	ultimately	provide	correct	answers,	to	science	as	open-ended	exploration, always ready to correct its errors when new evidence appears and which makes no pretense	of	answering	the	question	why? In	the	scientific	perspective,	the	ultimate	reality	is material, which is to say	matter-energy, and all that exists has evolved by permutations, combinations,	or	mutations	within	matter-energy. Of	course,	as	physical	bodies	evolved	in complexity	and	brains	grew	larger,	consciousness	complexified	and	grew,	too.	The	origin	of consciousness	will be explained via evolutionary science, for, at some	point, it	must have become	advantageous	for	organisms	to	actually	feel	their	response	mechanisms,	perhaps	to make	other	responses	possible. The	scientific	worldview	has	been	supremely	successful	in	explaining	(and	often	making	use of)	all	sorts	of	phenomena	that	were	once	explained	by	myths,	magic,	superstition,	or	wild guesswork. Phlogiston (the presumed hidden fire within combustible material) and the luminiferous	ether	(the	presumed	medium	necessary	for	the	propagation	of	light)	were	still accepted	by	some	scientists	early in the	20th century,	and	science is still in the	process	of convincing	an	often-doubtful	public	of	the	reality	of	organic	evolution. Using	experimental	evidence	and	hypothesis testing,	science	has	explained	much	that	was once	considered	miraculous	and,	in	the	process,	has	made	religious	beliefs	difficult	for	many people to	sustain. Now	it	seems inevitable that	science	will	explain	consciousness	and its origin	within	its	reductionist	system. Minds	will	be	shown	to	be	predictable	and	material. In this view, the seat of consciousness is the dynamic, material object we call the brain. Though	many	popular	science	writers indicate	that the	brain is itself	conscious, it is	more often assumed that the brain creates consciousness through certain as-yet-unspecified processes	or	modules, that	is,	the	brain	is	the	machine	of	consciousness. Beginning	in	the 1990s,	the	"decade	of	the	brain",	and	continuing	today,	one	of	the	goals	of	brain	research	is to	find	the	neural	correlates	of	consciousness	(NCC),	a	view	propounded	by	neuroscientists and	self-proclaimed	neurophilosophers	(including	Daniel	Dennett,	Patricia	Churchland,	and Paul Churchland). To explain the origin of consciousness, it is necessary to know	which processes	or	modules	are	activated	when	the	individual	is	conscious. As noted earlier, there is some question whether consciousness in the open definition appeared	with	the	first	rudimentary	sensations	in	living	units	that	had	no	central	processor (like a complex nervous system) and so likely no central experiencer, or whether it appeared only when the apex of the nervous system, the brain, began to process information. If	the	former,	then	what	is	needed	is	a	detailed	description	of	how	momentary sensations	evolved	to	combine	into	the	prolonged	sense	of	awareness	found,	we	presume, in	most	adult	human	brains. If	the	latter,	then	it	must	be	determined	just	which	modules	or processes	in	the	brain	produce	consciousness. Once	this	matter	is	settled,	it	presumably	is	a short	step	to	explain	the	origin	of	consciousness. As	an	aside, it	should	be	noted	that	the	brain	is	not	universally	accepted	as	modular in its functioning. Some theorists posit that consciousness emerges when the interaction of overlapping neural nets reaches certain levels of complexity (like parallel information processing	information	or	learning	from	feedback	in	computers). There	are	two	corollaries to	this	view. Origin	of	Consciousness 178 178 One	is	that,	although	the	human	brain	may	take	up	more	body	space	than	most	other	brains, it is	structurally	not	very	different from	other	mammalian	brains,	so	there is	no	reason	to think	humans	have	a	special	sort	of	mind	or	consciousness. Second	is	the	implication	that	if tiny	microchips	could	replace	complex	neurons,	they	could	serve	as	a	satisfactory	substrate for	consciousness. Thus	consciousness	could	emerge	in	computers	or	computer	networks. At this point, however, how the brain produces consciousness or where in the brain consciousness	is	produced	remains	uncertain. The	Search	for	Neural	Correlates There	have	been	many	suggestions	for	the	NCC,	beginning	with	René	Descartes	in	the	17th century, who fancied the pineal gland as the seat of the soul, to many well-researched alternatives today, especially those informed by brain-imaging techniques such as EEG (electroencephalography), PET (positron emission tomography) scans, fMRI (functioinal magnetic resonance imaging, and fEITER (functional electrical impedance tomography	by evoked response). A number of specific brain modules or neural processes have been suggested – too	many to list – but among them are the prefrontal cortex, high-frequency (gamma	band)	oscillations,	and	recurrent	oscillations in the thalamocortical systems. But there	is	uncertainty	about	whether	brain	imaging	can	ever	find	the	NCC,	much	less	explain its	origin. Problems	with	Scientific	Reductionism One of the problems	with brain-imaging techniques is that the brain seems to be always electrically and chemically active, even when the individual is not conscious. This fact implies that the interpretation of brain images cannot determine whether the images indicate	conscious	or	non-conscious	activity. Another	well-known	difficulty	is	the	so-called "binding problem", which states that diverse activities throughout the brain's vast complexity	could	not	combine	fast	enough	to	produce	the	continuity	of	consciousness. Furthermore, if consciousness exists as a result of pre-determined brain activity, then individuals	would	behave	no	differently	without	it. In	other	words,	it	has	no	function. This claim has become known as the zombie problem: others would appear to have consciousness	but	would	not. This	problem	is	related	to	the	so-called	hard	problem	of	consciousness	articulated	by	David Chalmers: Aside from how it functions, what is consciousness or awareness in itself (including its origin and	why it exists)? The hard problem of origin asks, "How can nonconscious matter produce conscious experience, because consciousness itself is both invisible	and	immaterial?"	How	can	even	the	first	twitch	of	rudimentary	sensation	suddenly be	felt	by	an	entity	in	a	world	that	presumably	had,	up	until	then,	evolved	entirely	without feeling	or	sensation? This is	a logical	chasm,	not least	because	a	nonexperienced	world is unimaginable	to	us. If	one	tries	to	imagine	it,	one	is	experiencing	it	vicariously. Denial	of	Consciousness One	way	around	this	problem	is	to	simply	deny	that	consciousness	exists,	that	to	consider	it an	illusion	of	language,	and	that	is	how	its	origin	must	be	understood. When	humans	began speaking, they found themselves in the	position of the subject in sentences about objects Origin	of	Consciousness 179 179 and	so	began	to	imagine	a	sort	of little	person	–	the	homunculus	– inside	their	heads	who was	the	decision-maker	of	their	actions,	i.e.,	the	self	we	each	call	"I". But this scenario is an illusion for, as many experiments in cognitive psychology have shown,	conscious	decisions	appear to	come	after the	readiness	potential (the	beginning	of the	action)	has	already	been	activated	in	the	brain. Therefore,	consciousness,	at	least	as	the decision-making	CEO	of	one's	decisions,	is	an	illusion. On	this	view,	actions	are	biologically determined, and consciousness originated as a side effect of language. It is at best an epiphenomenon	(an	after-the-fact	delusion). Quantum	Consciousness Another	way of dealing	with the quandary of how immaterial awareness could arise (or emerge) from inanimate, non-conscious matter-energy is to delve into the realm of subatomic	particles	or	fields,	better	done	with	quantum	mathematics	than	with	visual	tools. Postulated	quantum	consciousness,	which	exceeds	the	worldview	of	reductive	materialism, is famously abstruse. (Some have speculated that quantum consciousness was likely because both quantum physics and consciousness are mysterious and apparently inexplicable,	so	they	must	be	connected!) Quantum	consciousness	is	too	paradoxical	to	be	dealt	with	in	this	short	space,	but	it	can	at least be noted that	many of the classical laws of physics do	not exist at this infinitesimal level,	where	matter is revealed	as fields	of energy. For	example, light	has	been	shown to have	the	properties	of	both	waves	and	particles	(photons),	so	could	not	reality	be	both	mind (or	spirit)	and	matter,	as	in	the	worldview	of	double-aspect	monism? Examples	of	the	contradictions	to	the	laws	of	classical	physics	that	may	allow	for	a	mental aspect to reality include	nonlocality or	entanglement,	which	asserts that	a submicroscopic particle	(or	field)	like	a	photon	or	electron	may	be	in	more	than	one	place	at	the	same	time, allowing for	what is perceived as instantaneous action at a distance. Notable also is the uncertainty principle,	which	maintains that observation affects that	which is observed, so that it is impossible to simultaneously determine both the position and velocity of a quantum	unit	(like	a	photon	or	electron). According	to	the	observer	effect,	which	is	related	to	the	uncertainty	principle,	observation	or measurement is necessary for the indeterminate superposition of a	wave energy field to "collapse" into particles of measurable substance. For some quantum philosophers, the superposition is the universal state of pre-consciousness, a view also known panprotopsychism	or	panexperientialism.	When	the	observer	causes	the	indeterminate	wave function	of light	to	collapse	or	be	transformed	into	matter-energy	particles,	consciousness begins,	along	with	the	perceptible	world	of	form	and	matter. Dualism	and	Dual-Aspect	Monism For	most	of	us,	quantum	physics	is	just	too	abstract	to	really	grasp,	especially	in	explaining the	origin	of	consciousness. However,	the	concept	of	the	superposition	wave	state	hints	at two pre-scientific worldviews that point to the origin of consciousness in other ways entirely. One	is	the	religious	worldview	that	states	that	God	or	the	gods,	either	accidentally or	purposefully,	created the	world, life,	and	consciousness. For	some	quantum	physicists, Origin	of	Consciousness 180 180 the	ultimate	observer	is	God,	who	brought	forth	form	and	consciousness	from	chaos. In	this view, lived	reality is	secondary,	an illusion,	compared	to the	primary	reality	of	God	or the gods,	but	at	least	consciousness	is	explained,	God	and	the	world	being	separate	substances, the	worldview	known	as	dualism. Descartes	famously	stood	with	dualism,	saying	that	both	mind	and	matter	are	real,	but	only mind	feels,	thinks,	and	is	consciously	connected	to	God. Before	gods	were	even	conceived, however,	it	seems	that	tribal	ancestors	or	archaic	cultures	felt	Nature	to	be	alive. If	Nature is taken	as	God, this is	pantheism,	which	has little	support	today. However,	panpsychism, which	is	similar	to	the	animism	of	archaic	cultures	in	which	all	things	have	souls,	seems	to be	making	a	comeback. It	gets	around	the	hard	problem	by	claiming	that	Nature	and	psyche are two aspects of the same ultimate reality (dual-aspect monism), the perspective of ecopsychology. Psyche becomes embodied consciousness in animals, which match the animal's	physical	attributes. Psyche, in ancient thought and alchemy, as	well as in the	writings of psychoanalysts like Carl Jung, manifests both consciously and unconsciously. Unconscious psyche implies unconscious experience, as in panexperientialism, which is instinctive experience. Only humans	can	make	unconscious	experience	into	conscious	experience,	into	a	conscious	mind, via their ability to symbolize their	own	experience, share it	with	others, and reflect	on it. But	doing	so	is	just	a	particularization	of	the	universal	mind	or	psyche. Intersubjective	Origin	of	Human	Consciousness This line	of	argument leads to	what is currently the	only	other	widely	accepted	origin-ofconsciousness theory, one that claims the brain is not enough to create human	minds. I refer	to	what	has	been	called intersubjectivity	or	the	social	construction	of	consciousness. Psychoanalysts or psychologists who accept the existence of an unconscious mind understand	that	the	conscious	mind	–	the	self	or	the	ego	complex	–	is	the	product	of	social interaction	and	language. People learn	ego; they	learn	to	refer	to	ourselves	as	"I"-that is,	both	the	inner	self	whom we experience as guiding our choices and the subjective position in social interaction, especially	in	symbolic	discourse	(language). People	learn	to	be	conscious. This	position	is very	similar	to	phenomenology,	which	sees	the	self	as	either	thrown into	consciousness	or led	into	consciousness	via	social	learning	for	the	sake	of	group	identity	or,	in	a	sense	more in accord with totalitarian cultures, individuals are socially conditioned into being consciously	controlled	(via	mechanisms	like	shame,	guilt,	pride,	etc.). Some developmental psychologists	who have studied the stages of growth of individuals compare	such	stages	in	a	broad	sense	to	the	prehistoric	evolution	of	the	human	mind	and have concluded that there is a specific stage when children attain consciousness of self, often after spending time identifying with the consciousness of others. In paleoanthropology,	the	first	signs	of	symbolic	communication	or	expression	(beyond	mere functional tool use) coincide	with the emergence of cooperative	minds	within the shared intentionality	of	a	group. From	this	view,	self-awareness	only	becomes	possible	once	one has	assumed	the	position	of	others	and	objectively	sensed	one's	existence	from	the	outside, as	it	were,	as	a	self	among	selves-intersubjectivity. Origin	of	Consciousness 181 181 A	great	many	steps	are	needed	before	individuals	learn	to	place	themselves	in	the	position of the other and begins to communicate person to person. Language acquisition and symbolic communication are signs of self-consciousness, which is, again, the only consciousness	humans	recognize,	though	they	often	do	imaginatively	project	the	same	sort of	self-aware	consciousness	into	our	pets,	other	animals,	or	even	when	we	personify	natural phenomena. People	imagine	deities	with	a	mind	similar	to	theirs	as	well. This socially-constructed consciousness is very different from the illusory consciousness mentioned above by the eliminative materialists as an accidental side effect (an epiphenomenon) of language use that has no actual effect on behavior. In the culturally constructed consciousness view, individuals learn to listen, speak, and become intersubjectively	engaged	in	the	course	of	becoming	conscious	of	themselves. This	may	lead to	the	development	of	actual	self-agency	and	self-directed	behavior	(but	not	necessarily). In other	words,	culture	births	the	sense	of	self,	and	that	self	can	then	act	to	change	the	culture. From this perspective, brains are necessary for consciousness but not sufficient. Other brains	are	needed,	both	living	and	dead,	to	which	the	individual	must	connect	via	channels of	communication	that	act	like	extended	synapses	to	exceed	those	of	an	individual	brain	in order to give shape to a cooperative culture. Only then does self-awareness or	what	we have	come	to	call	consciousness	emerge. Conclusion This	intersubjective	theory	of	origin	is	the	closed	sense	of	consciousness	that	rises	above	a sea	of	unconscious	experience	because	of	language	and	culture. The	most	widely-accepted view	of	the	origin	of	consciousness	(at	least	among	academics),	however,	seems	to	be	that	of neuroscience,	which	views	the	brain	alone	as	producing	consciousness,	all	the	way	down	– the	open	definition	of	consciousness.	Ultimately,	given	the	various	origins	of	consciousness that	have	been	hypothesized,	the	most	acceptable	will	likely	be	the	one	most	in	accord	with one's	already-present	set	of	assumptions	about	reality. Gregory	Nixon,	UNBC Recommended	Further	Readings Chalmers, D. J. (2010). The character of consciousness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Damasio, A. (2012). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York, NY: Vintage. Nagel,	T.	(2012).	Mind	and	cosmos:	Why	the	materialist	neo-Darwinian	conception	of	nature is	almost	certainly	false.	New	York,	NY:	Oxford	University	Press. Rochat, P. (2009). Others in mind: Social origins of self-consciousness. New York, NY: Cambridge	University	Press. Stapp,	H.	P.	(2011).	Mindful	universe:	Quantum	mechanics	and	the	participating	observer	(2nd ed.).	New	York,	NY:	Springer.