The Future of the Mind (9 page)

Next we have Level II consciousness, where organisms create a model of their place not only in space but also with respect to others (i.e., they are social animals with emotions). The number of feedback loops for Level II consciousness explodes exponentially, so it is useful to introduce a new numerical ranking for this type of consciousness. Forming allies, detecting
enemies, serving the alpha male, etc., are all very complex behaviors requiring a vastly expanded brain, so Level II consciousness coincides with the formation of new structures of the brain in the form of the limbic system. As noted earlier, the limbic system includes the hippocampus (for memories), amygdala (for emotions), and the thalamus (for sensory information), all of which provide new parameters for creating models in relation to others. The number and type of feedback loops therefore change.

We define the degree of Level II consciousness as the total number of distinct feedback loops required for an animal to interact socially with members of its grouping. Unfortunately, studies of animal consciousness are extremely limited, so little work has been done to catalog all the ways in which animals communicate socially with one another. But to a crude first approximation, we can estimate Level II consciousness by counting the number of fellow animals in its pack or tribe and then listing the total number of ways in which the animal interacts emotionally with each one. This would include recognizing rivals and friends, forming bonds with others, reciprocating favors, building coalitions, understanding your status and the social ranking of others, respecting the status of your superiors, displaying your power over your inferiors, plotting to rise on the social ladder, etc. (We exclude insects from Level II, because although they have social relations with members of their hive or group, they have no emotions as far as we can tell.)

Despite the lack of empirical studies of animal behaviors, we can give a very rough numerical rank to Level II consciousness by listing the total number of distinct emotions and social behaviors that the animal can exhibit. For example, if a wolf pack consists of ten wolves, and each wolf interacts with all the others with fifteen different emotions and gestures, then its level of consciousness, to a first approximation, is given by the product of the two, or 150, so it would have Level II:150 consciousness. This number takes into account both the number of other animals it has to interact with as well as the number of ways it can communicate with each one. This number only approximates the total number of social interactions that the animal can display, and will undoubtedly change as we learn more about its behavior.

(Of course, because evolution is never clean and precise, there are caveats that we have to explain, such as the level of consciousness of social animals that are solitary hunters.
We will do so in the notes.)

LEVEL III CONSCIOUSNESS: SIMULATING THE FUTURE

With this framework for consciousness, we see that humans are not unique, and that there is a continuum of consciousness. As Charles Darwin once commented, “
The difference between man and the higher animals, great as it is, is certainly one of degree and not of kind.” But what separates human consciousness from the consciousness of animals? Humans are alone in the animal kingdom in understanding the concept of tomorrow. Unlike animals, we constantly ask ourselves “What if?” weeks, months, and even years into the future, so I believe that Level III consciousness creates a model of its place in the world and then simulates it into the future, by making rough predictions. We can summarize this as follows:

Human consciousness is a specific form of consciousness that creates a model of the world and then simulates it in time, by evaluating the past to simulate the future. This requires mediating and evaluating many feedback loops in order to make a decision to achieve a goal
.

By the time we reach Level III consciousness, there are so many feedback loops that we need a CEO to sift through them in order to simulate the future and make a final decision. Accordingly, our brains differ from those of other animals, especially in the expanded prefrontal cortex, located just behind the forehead, which allows us to “see” into the future.

Dr. Daniel Gilbert, a Harvard psychologist, has written, “
The greatest achievement of the human brain is its ability to imagine objects and episodes that do not exist in the realm of the real, and it is this ability that allows us to think about the future. As one philosopher noted, the human brain is an ‘anticipation machine,’ and ‘making the future’ is the most important thing it does.”

Using brain scans, we can even propose a candidate for the precise area of the brain where simulation of the future takes place. Neurologist Michael Gazzaniga notes that “
area 10 (the internal granular layer IV), in the lateral prefrontal cortex, is almost twice as large in humans as in apes. Area 10 is involved with memory and planning, cognitive flexibility, abstract thinking, initiating appropriate behavior, and inhibiting inappropriate behavior, learning rules, and picking out relevant information from what is perceived
through the senses.” (For this book, we will refer to this area, in which decision making is concentrated, as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, although there is some overlap with other areas of the brain.)

Although animals may have a well-defined understanding of their place in space and some have a degree of awareness of others, it is not clear if they systematically plan for the future and have an understanding of “tomorrow.” Most animals, even social animals with well-developed limbic systems, react to situations (e.g., the presence of predators or potential mates) by relying mainly on instinct, rather than systematically planning into the future.

For instance, mammals do not plan for the winter by preparing to hibernate, but largely follow instinct as the temperature drops. There is a feedback loop that regulates their hibernation. Their consciousness is dominated by messages coming in from their senses. There is no evidence that they systemically sift through various plans and schemes as they prepare to hibernate. Predators, when they use cunning and disguise to stalk an unsuspecting prey, do anticipate future events, but this planning is limited only to instinct and the duration of the hunt. Primates are adept at devising short-term plans (e.g., finding food), but there is no indication that they plan more than a few hours ahead.

Humans are different. Although we do rely on instinct and emotions in many situations, we also constantly analyze and evaluate information from many feedback loops. We do this by running simulations sometimes even beyond our own life span and even thousands of years into the future. The point of running simulations is to evaluate various possibilities to make the best decision to fulfill a goal. This occurs in the prefrontal cortex, which allows us to simulate the future and evaluate the possibilities in order to chart the best course of action.

This ability evolved for several reasons. First, having the ability to peer into the future has enormous evolutionary benefits, such as evading predators and finding food and mates. Second, it allows us to choose among several different outcomes and to select the best one.

Third, the number of feedback loops explodes exponentially as we go from Level 0 to Level I to Level II, so we need a “CEO” to evaluate all these conflicting, competing messages. Instinct is no longer enough. There has to be a central body that evaluates each of these feedback loops. This distinguishes human consciousness from that of the animals. These feedback
loops are evaluated, in turn, by simulating them into the future to obtain the best outcome. If we didn’t have a CEO, chaos would ensue and we would have sensory overload.

A simple experiment can demonstrate this. David Eagleman describes how you can take a male stickleback fish and have a female fish trespass on its territory.
The male gets confused, because it wants to mate with the female, but it also wants to defend its territory. As a result, the male stickleback fish will simultaneously attack the female while initiating courtship behavior. The male is driven into a frenzy, trying to woo and kill the female at the same time.

This works for mice as well. Put an electrode in front of a piece of cheese. If the mouse gets too close, the electrode will shock it. One feedback loop tells the mouse to eat the cheese, but another one tells the mouse to stay away and avoid being shocked. By adjusting the location of the electrode, you can get the mouse to oscillate, torn between two conflicting feedback loops. While a human has a CEO in its brain to evaluate the pros and cons of the situation, the mouse, governed by two conflicting feedback loops, goes back and forth. (This is like the proverb about the donkey that starves to death because it is placed between two equal bales of hay.)

Precisely how does the brain simulate the future? The human brain is flooded by a large amount of sensory and emotional data. But the key is to simulate the future by making causal links between events—that is, if A happens, then B happens. But if B happens, then C and D might result. This sets off a chain reaction of events, eventually creating a tree of possible cascading futures with many branches. The CEO in the prefrontal cortex evaluates the results of these causal trees in order to make the ultimate decision.

Let’s say you want to rob a bank. How many realistic simulations of this event can you make? To do this, you have to think of the various causal links involving the police, bystanders, alarm systems, relations with fellow criminals, traffic conditions, the DA’s office, etc. For a successful simulation of the robbery, hundreds of causal links may have to be evaluated.

It is also possible to measure this level of consciousness numerically. Let’s say that a person is given a series of different situations like the one above and is asked to simulate the future of each. The sum total number of causal links that the person can make for all these situations can be tabulated. (One complication is that there are an unlimited number of causal links that a
person might make for a variety of conceivable situations. To get around this complication, we divide this number by the average number of causal links obtained from a large control group. Like the IQ exam, one may multiply this number by 100. So a person’s level of consciousness, for example, might be Level III:100, meaning that the person can simulate future events just like the average person.)

We summarize these levels of consciousness in the following diagram:

LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS FOR DIFFERENT SPECIES

Space-time theory of consciousness. We define consciousness as the process of creating a model of the world using multiple feedback loops in various parameters (e.g., in space, time, and in relation to others), in order to accomplish a goal. Human consciousness is a particular type that involves mediating between these feedback loops by simulating the future and evaluating the past.

(Notice that these categories correspond to the rough evolutionary levels we find in nature—e.g., reptiles, mammals, and humans. However, there are also gray areas, such as animals that might possess tiny aspects of different levels of consciousness, animals that do some rudimentary planning, or even single cells that communicate with one another. This chart is meant only to give you the larger, global picture of how consciousness is organized across the animal kingdom.)

WHAT IS HUMOR? WHY DO WE HAVE EMOTIONS?

All theories have to be falsifiable. The challenge for the space-time theory of consciousness is to explain
all
aspects of human consciousness in this framework. It can be falsified if there are patterns of thought that cannot be brought into this theory. A critic might say that surely our sense of humor is so quixotic and ephemeral that it is beyond explanation. We spend a great
deal of time laughing with our friends or at comedians, yet it seems that humor has nothing to do with our simulations of the future. But consider this. Much of humor, such as telling a joke, depends on the punch line.

When hearing a joke, we can’t help but simulate the future and complete the story ourselves (even if we’re unaware that we’re doing so). We know enough about the physical and social world that we can anticipate the ending, so we burst out with laughter when the punch line gives us a totally unexpected conclusion. The essence of humor is when our simulation of the future is suddenly disrupted in surprising ways. (This was historically important for our evolution since success depends, in part, on our ability to simulate future events. Since life in the jungle is full of unanticipated events, anyone who can foresee unexpected outcomes has a better chance at survival. In this way, having a well-developed sense of humor is actually one indication of our Level III consciousness and intelligence; that is, the ability to simulate the future.)

For example, W. C. Fields was once asked a question about social activities for youth. He was asked, “Do you believe in clubs for young people?” He replied, “Only when kindness fails.”

The joke has a punch line only because we mentally simulate a future in which children have social clubs, while W. C. Fields simulates a different future involving clubs as a weapon. (Of course, if a joke is deconstructed, it loses its power, since we have already simulated various possible futures in our minds.)