Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Sadly you're not wrong, evolution is one of those theories that can conform itself to whatever reality happens to be. If consciousness is a useless byproduct, oh well, that's just what evolution does. If consciousness is a needed component for volition and decision-making, oh well, that's because evolution made it so.

Theories that can predict every possible outcome, besides being useless, run into issues of falsification.

But evolution isn't really about explaining consciousness. If consciousness is not physical at the core, then that's a matter that warrants another type of explanation. One of your many mistakes here is that you think biological evolution has to explain everything, lol.

Well, yes, I'm under the impression that biological evolution should explain everything related to biological organisms. Consciousness is possibly the only thing that conclusively differentiates living organisms from non-living matter. Almost everything else that living organisms do, can be mimicked by non-living technologies. It seems strange to think evolution wouldn't need to explain or account for consciousness.

---

"Just a load of questions with no answers."

Its understandable to switch off; science requires a mild interest in the unknown. Hopefully a passion for it.