Skip to content

On the Evolution, Science, and Metaphysics of Consciousness

W. Veit

Adaptive Behavior December 27, 2025 DOI: 10.1177/10597123251413204 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Key points The author argues that the evolutionary account of consciousness can withstand four sets of criticisms, defending a bottom-up evolutionary approach and an evaluation-first view of consciousness while distinguishing this naturalistic framework from autopoiesis, enactivism, and prediction-based alternatives, and clarifying its relation to animal welfare science.

Abstract

In this article, I defend and expand my evolutionary account of consciousness developed in A Philosophy for the Science of Animal Consciousness against four critical replies. I respond to de Weerd’s challenge to the evolutionary bottom-up approach, clarifying what it entails. I address Sachs’s discussion of autopoiesis and enactivism, distinguishing my naturalistic framework from these alternatives. I engage Frankish’s concerns about my remaining Cartesian commitments. I reply to Suzuki’s prediction-based alternative to my evaluation-first view of consciousness, his criticism of my discussion of disunity, and his scepticism that consciousness is an adaptation. Finally, I address Chincarini’s comments on the connection between the pathological complexity thesis and animal welfare science.

Citations in the library