Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis

[DLJ]

...
Assumptions:
 
  1. All products of biological evolution, no matter how far advanced, have an early rudimentary base that become more and more sophisticated.
...

All extant biological entities are equally advanced ... in that they are all the end result of the 'fitness equation'.  So, in terms of 'time', they are equally advanced but in terms of the number of generations one could argue that bacteria are more advanced.  Just saying that 'advanced' is a dangerous word and smacks of anthropocentrism.  

...
Assumptions:
  ...
  2. Evolution used information from its surrounding ecosystem to naturally select mechanisms that could make its products more efficient.
...

The language here is poetic (which is nice) but not accurate.  There's an implication of 'purpose' in the way this is worded.  Better to stick to 'adaptation', 'natural selection' and 'fitness'.

...
Assumptions:
...
  3. Our brains today serve as an advanced movie theater. Its not that what we see is an illusion, but rather it is a prediction made by our brain. This includes everything we perceive, physical and meta physical.
...

Hmmm.  I'd avoid the word 'theatre' as it might lead a reader into homunculus-territory.  But predictive modelling is right.
We only need 3 simulators ... self, other and future.

...
Assumptions:
...
  4. Whether or not a God or godlike figure exist, evolution was never directed by an outside intelligence. All advances in evolution, whether they were conscious, subconscious, accidental, or just plain dumb luck, only had an information data set that was based in our closed system of earth. (I feel like I could word that better if anyone has a suggestion)
...

I'm not sure you need this one at all.  Earth is not a closed system (unless you're saying that you don't think that the sun and moon have any affect on the environment ) ... in which case this is a repeat of assumption 1.

...
     So, if you assume all of those are true, then that means our consciousness is also a far advanced product of evolution. The Hard Problem of consciousness is like the GOP's hard problem of voter fraud. You can make it a problem, and support with subjective facts, but it is not a real problem.
...

Nice analogy.

I think it's easier to see things from the perspective of silicon based 'life-forms' ... or to put it another way, let's think of ourselves as non-artificial intelligent agents. What do we need for that?

Hardware, an Operating System, Software Programs, Application Programs and then data (that is input).

As an example, we can say that desires (hunger, thirst, disgust, lust etc.) are in the OS, beliefs are in the software, deism is the app and a particular brand of theism (e.g. catholicism etc.) is the data entry.

Or English Language is an App and vocabulary is the data.
You get the idea.

A 'capacity to believe' (the ability to 'represent' a concept) is innate i.e. built into the operating system (by evolution) but 'what gets believed' (the actual concept) is the software that's loaded in our informative years. This means we also need to take into account the upload process itself i.e. childhood development.

But for IT Management and Governance we also need:
Monitoring Software
Event Management Software
Risk Management methods.

Creatures that were not very good at developing rudimentary risk management software were simply not very good at being ancestors. Or, at least, not our ancestors.

Note: If you are not comfortable with the software analogy, i.e. what if it was different ... can one make these assumptions about the evolution of desires and beliefs? I ask this:
What if we had a different operating system?
Think about it this way ... what would computers be like if the dominant intelligent computer-creating species were not as dependent on vision and more dependent on, like dogs, smell.
Or how about dolphins? Underwater computers operated using echo technology?

Anyway, consciousness can be represented in this analogy as a Virtual Machine (VM) or as I mentioned above 3 VMs (self, other and future) to enable predictive modelling.

The event detection software gives us our ability to increase focus of attention when our sensors (taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing, balance and proximity etc.) generate an alert.

These alerts are still happening when we sleep (why else would there be a market for alarm clocks?) but at a more primitive level.  Even plants can do this.  It's just that plants don't have the evolved VMs to be able to 'represent' (attach a reason) to the event.

...
The better question is this, how come we have such a Hard Problem with accepting consciousness as merely, just another evolutionary advancements, like the eye, brain, or blood.
...

Beats me.  Because we're special?  Because god?  I dunno.  

...
Isn't consciousness nothing more than our brain making billions and trillions of instant predictions?
...

Yes and no.  It is that but as part of a system (as described above).

...
It makes sense that our brain has found ways to "outsource" functions of a body. That way, the brain doesn't have to "think" about it. I don't have to command my heart to pump blood, and I don't have the ability to command it to stop. Our brains evolved to have a subconscious that takes care of the everyday maintenance, and a "fore-concscious" The evolutionary use of being conscious is obvious if you consider how big of an advantage it is to be able to learn how to even more efficiently make use of our surroundings.     
...

...
Not 'outsource'; in-source.  All living organisms can do the homeostasis stuff and the " if hunger; then feed" routine.  The stomach is often referred to as our first brain.  We're not much more than food processors really.
There's a happy thought.

'Sub-conscious' is merely a convenient label for the primitive alert / pattern recognition systems that operate without the need of  the consciousness VMs.

I have no idea what you mean by 'fore-conscious'.

So, in summary, by and large, yes, I agree with you.