1. Natural evolution is contingent on necessity for function. 2. The apparent necessity of consciousness is modally contingent, i.e. consciousness is unnecessary for function if natural evolution is not presupposed, as it shouldn't be. 3. Therefore, consciousness wouldn't have naturally evolved. (modus tollens from 1)
This alone is sufficient to show the plausible irrationality of atheism, but further, the very notion of consciousness "emerging" implies it's a supernatural substance. Either you believe in God, or you must believe we're not actually conscious.
pic kind of related. You'd think if consciousness were a physical necessity, someone would be able to draw it.
>Either you believe in God hey stupid, which god are you talking about? There are thousands. Did you mean the Abrahamic/Khazar versions Did you mean the Pharisaical Talmud vesions Which one, you fuckin stupid child of a faggot OP
Luke Jackson
>god exists therefore the bible is true
Henry Gray
you flex like David Icke flex like David Icke you think you know the truth, you think you are David Icke, you think you know the truth, you think you know the truth man, ufos are real, the documents are real man, the aliens are here man, the reptilians are here man, the illuminati listening man
By what context are you saying evolution is contingent on necessity? Evolution is contingent upon reproductivity. Not all changes that come with evolution are necessary, or even supportive in the reproductivity of the individual.
Your second premise, i've read 4 times and I still don't get it. But for starters, when you say "apparent" aren't you opening a can of undefinable worms?
Connor Baker
>there are multiple possibilities >therefore all possibilities are incorrect Just when I thought leafs couldn't get any dumber
James Allen
If self awareness enables faster learning, wouldn't that be sufficient for producing an evolutionary advantage? If 1 out of 10 apes learned twice as fast as the others, he'd have 100% advantage over his 9 competitors when engaging in new challenges or tasks.
Gavin Smith
But how could it enable faster learning? IE what would be the difference between a real, conscious, chimp, and a chimp who has been cloned and his brain replaced with a computer software clone of his neural network, which would not be conscious?
If the "consciousness" itself is an advantage, then that must be an advantage that is not just physical but something else, which again implies the "supremacy" of the conscious dimensional layer above the physical layer.
Elijah Edwards
I agree with you, but for practice: What if evolution is simply the removal of that unable to survive. Consciousness could then just be an area untouched by evolutionary pressures.
Matthew Carter
You're making zero sense. Let's say you have a "real" universe and a simulated one, side by side. And let's say the initial conditions in the real ine are replicated perfectly in the simulation. Then life and eventually consciousness would have evolved the exact same way in both universes. Nothing about the one universe being a simulation rules out consciousness.
Zachary Thompson
FPBP
The only person here who can see the forest through the trees. It all makes sense when you stop viewing humanity as the cause and realize the DNA pathfinding called evolution is literally a biological bootstrap for superintelligence.
Jason Cox
>1. Natural evolution is contingent on necessity for function.
Wrong. Not all traits are adaptive. Google genetic drift, founder effect, etc.
>consciousness is unnecessary for function
No empirical or logical support for this claim.
Therefore 3 is completely unfounded.
>You'd think if consciousness were a physical necessity, someone would be able to draw it
and this is where you where you completely gave up on trying to make sense.
Hunter Brooks
Conciseness evolved because it acts like a built in theory of mind. In other words, by being aware of my own internal cognitive processes, I can relatively accurately predict your internal processes and in turn your actions. This is a major evolutionary advantage.
There's only so much you can predict just with external observation. Having a peek inside your own mind and seeing your processes mirrored in others is very useful. It's as close to mind-reading as we've gotten.
Asher Harris
Yet neural networks and deep learning networks, or even non machine learning computers can have a "built in theory of mind" and "accurately predict your internal processes" without being sentient.
Aiden Moore
>Having a peek inside your own mind and seeing your processes mirrored in others is very useful. It's as close to mind-reading as we've gotten.
But a monkey can supposedly build a model of a how a lion behaves inside his mind, and himself act accordingly, or at least he acts like he does as far as we can tell. Is the monkey conscious then? I don't think so.
Joshua Miller
>naturally evolving biological systems don't behave the exact same way as man-made computer systems
Who woulda thunk it
Isaac Garcia
>Is the monkey conscious then? I don't think so.
Why not? Humans are far from the only conscious animal. Even pigs are self-aware. Other conscious animals just lack the intelligence to function as well as humans, they don't lack the consciousness.
Jayden Richardson
> Conciseness evolved because it acts like a built in theory of mind.
> Providing no evidence that consciousness equals built in theory of mind whatsoever > Ignoring all the ways a simulation of a mind can be created without consciousness > Failing to provide a reason WHY evolution would favour a conscious model of mind(s) vs an unconscious one
