Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Anomalocaris]

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.

You have zero interest in finding out the unknown.   Your interest in the unknown lies primarily in the sanctuary of ignorance they seem to you and your needy and wishthinking ilk to provide for your god.    If what you imagine to have been a nice protective unknown is becoming known, you would stoop to any dishonesty to resist the discoveries and their implications in order to avoid acknowledging that your god is being driven out of yet another hideout.

So give us a break, don’t wax lyrical about “mild interest in unknown”.   Your interest in the unknown is not a worthy interest for anyone with any genuine intellectual honesty, nor are our interest in the unknown of a kind you would have the moral strength to embrace.