RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 11:12 am
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2012 at 11:15 am by Cyberman.)
(October 28, 2012 at 10:57 am)MysticKnight Wrote:(October 28, 2012 at 8:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why would you assume that consciousness, whatever that means to you, arose in a single mutation? Do you mean a "consciousness" like our own? That took fair few more than one, so far as we can tell.
Well there would have to be logically a lot of steps (perhaps millions) to get to consciousness from unconsciousness. But at the same time, there has to be a point where it's actually conscious as opposed to not. But before that, it's not conscious.
Or semi-conscious, to varying degrees. Consciousness isn't an all-or-nothing condition.
(October 28, 2012 at 10:57 am)MysticKnight Wrote: This is non-sequitur, if consciousness is solely created by biological/physical, it doesn't mean evolution was capable of producing it.
How would that work? Biological and physical processes are the bread and butter of evolution. I agree that your comment is a non sequitur.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
