[JAK]

Herbert Spencer's, "The Survival of the Fittest", though much maligned, has been grossly misunderstood, IMO. The proper interpretation of "Fittest" should be "best fit." This appears to be the fundamental underpinning of the workings of consciousness.

As we perceive objects, the mind does fetches of matching memories. This appears to be done using O.G. Selfriges "Pandemonium Model" (1959) and/or Dominic Massaro's Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception (FLMP - 1990s). The matching is a "best fit" scenario.

Once a match is found, then the associated behaviors (stored with the memory), AND DANGERS, as well as the values/emotions (discovered by Wilder Penfield in the 1940s) are selected. Included amongst the values is the highest and most powerful one (homeostasis? control?). Together, the behaviors and values/emotions are competed in the nucleus Reticularis Thalami (Baars/Newman 1980s-90s). The neural circuitry of highest strength wins the competition and drives behavior. If circuits representing danger are most powerful, then avoidance behaviors win the competition.

Frequently, the avoidance behavior becomes "let's think some more," and the problem is moved into the forebrain for some further planning. This becomes conscious thought (or "rehearsal work" as Freud called it). The new results are then recompeted in the nRT. Once a "seek" or "avoid" behavior exceeds the "let's think some more" threshold, active behavior ensues.

In summary, the decision making process is a search of memory for the "best fit", and the selected behavior is the "best fit", in that, it best matches the drive toward homeostasis/control and incurs the least (or acceptable) risk (Kahneman & Tversky). Thus, the brain mimics "survival of the fittest". The brain mimics this because it fit the circumstances that life faced. In other words, the strategy was naturally selected to fit the demand of the environment - once again, "best fit."