Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

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 possible 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.

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 ...