Dexter wrote:

ant wrote: TOE to my knowledge does not prove that the environment inevitably produces consciousness.
Does it?.

I'd be surprised if anyone on Earth has ever made that claim.

You seem to be arguing against no one.

What claim did I make?
I said that TOE, as far as I know, doesnt explain consciousness.
Then I asked Geo if he thinks or knows if it does.

Learn to read, Strawman.

ant wrote: What claim did I make?
I said that TOE, as far as I know, doesnt explain consciousness.
Then I asked Geo if he thinks or knows if it does.

Learn to read, Strawman.

You're the one having trouble here. I didn't say you made a claim, the answer to your inquiry is that no one has ever made that claim.

In your vague quasi-skepticism about evolution, you seem to consistently misunderstand what claims scientists have made about it.

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote: What claim did I make?
I said that TOE, as far as I know, doesnt explain consciousness.
Then I asked Geo if he thinks or knows if it does.

Learn to read, Strawman.

You're the one having trouble here. I didn't say you made a claim, the answer to your inquiry is that no one has ever made that claim.

In your vague quasi-skepticism about evolution, you seem to consistently misunderstand what claims scientists have made about it.

I didnt say anyone here ever made that claim either. Duh.

I guess TOE cant explain consciousness even though its alleged to be a product of the environment.
But TOE would want to explain the evolution of consciousness. "Its emergent" isnt quite satisfying.
Kinda like a vague "the environment magically dun it" huh?
You satisfied with that?
Does the awe and wonder of that explanation make you feel spiritually connected with the dumb environment?

ant wrote:
I didnt say anyone here ever made that claim either. Duh.

I never said you did, you're trying to weasel your way out again.

Do you know how I'm so confident that NO ONE HAS EVER made a claim about TOE explaining consciousness? Because an 8th grade introduction to evolution would be enough to know that is beyond the scope of the theory. But you didn't seem to know that.

I guess TOE cant explain consciousness even though its alleged to be a product of the environment.

I guess not. You sure smacked it down and put it in its place.

But do you believe humans evolved or not?

I never said you made a claim that TOE explains consciousness. Now yourr wanting to argue that I did.
You have another strawman to protect your deep psychological need for blind and dumb nature.

Never mind, you can't read or understand even the basics of what evolution is about.

Dexter wrote:Never mind, you can't read or understand even the basics of what evolution is about.

Oh yes I can.

Life evolved from lower forms of life.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution.
Another is genetic drift
yet another is random mutations

ant wrote:I guess TOE cant explain consciousness even though its alleged to be a product of the environment.
But TOE would want to explain the evolution of consciousness. "Its emergent" isnt quite satisfying.
Kinda like a vague "the environment magically dun it" huh?
You satisfied with that?
Does the awe and wonder of that explanation make you feel spiritually connected with the dumb environment?

Well, TOE doesn't want anything because it's a theory. What I said is that self awareness seems emergent, but hey, I'm just a guy on the internet. If you really are interested in these questions, I would recommend reading some books. Emergent evolution is a hypothesis. And no one has ever claimed that anyone is satisfied with this explanation. That would be your strawman. No one is ever satisfied, which is why scientists are still studying evolution and why our knowledge of evolution is constantly changing

There's nothing magical about any of this stuff either. In a world that has an atmosphere, you would expect eyes to emerge as a recurring trait because it aids in survival. And so it appears that eyes have evolved independently on our planet several times. I’d say that higher consciousness and intelligence appear to be recurrent traits as well and that’s good for humans. This armchair philosopher supposes self awareness may have aided our survival at some point and likely has contributed to our current domination of the planet. But not all animals need self-awareness, as you point out. Not all animals need long necks either.

ant wrote:TOE to my knowledge does not prove that the environment inevitably produces consciousness.
Does it?.

No, this would be a very species-centric perspective. Why would self awareness be any more special than acute hearing in felines or long necks in giraffes? Self awareness may help some animals thrive in their niches, but there’s really nothing special about humans in the grand scheme of things. We could die out in a hundred years and the cockroaches would remain the reigning champs. Obviously I think humans are pretty special with our art and literature and digital watches, but from the universe's perspective, we're just monkeys with an overinflated sense of ourselves. Sort of like Donald Trump.

By the way, John Gurche's forthcoming paleoart book looks awesome. Thanks for posting this, Dexter.

ant wrote:There are other forces that are not yet fully understood.
Organisms may already be equipped with flexibility to change their physical structure. Genes may work in conjunction with the environment: how they do IS NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD.

Don't you have to understand what is currently known to say the entirety is not well understood? Cherry picking doesn't give you the context to make that assessment. We understand the mechanism well, at the same time the way specific things evolved is unknown. If it still isn't clicking, I can try again with my erosion analogy.

Flann wrote:It's not a good explanation for the glaring wholesale lack of intermediates between pre-and Cambrian fossils.

I guess I don't understand what your point is. The idea of a gradual evolution has been falsified. It's no longer used, depending on how you conceptualize gradual change.

This is like relativity replacing newton's formulas, in a way. The same forces are at play, and both conceptualizations have their use. But one is more false, where the other is more true. In either case, we know the answer has to do with the evolution of species. Even if our understanding of that process has changed over the last century.