Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

IF (and the key word here is "if") consciousness is not biological at the core, then biological evolution has nothing to do with it. It makes no sense to use the theory to make it account for its existence. If, on the other hand, consciousness is really just the complex brain functioning in a way that allows for such vivid self-experiences then evolution accounts for that perfectly through the proper understanding of how the neurons work together to yield consciousness. Again, where is the problem exactly?

Another mistake you're making is equivocating consciousness with life. Not all living organisms are necessarily conscious. Unless you think bacteria do ...

I guess I'm not understanding why, if consciousness isn't biological, that's not problem for evolution? It would perhaps even be a problem for every physical science we have.

Because evolution is to do with the biological aspects of the world, not the non-biological. You can't undermine the theory with something it's not meant to account for.

Why would consciousness being something different from what is normally accepted be a problem for every physical science?

That's not an equivocation I've made. It doesn't matter if not all living organisms have consciousness, as long as only living organisms do.

But there's nothing to suggest that the organically "nonliving" can't ever have consciousness. AI might one day have what we could reasonably call consciousness, you never know.