Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
I don't think advanced is the right word. Complicated seems more appropriate. Here's why...
You could argue that intelligence is produced by evolutionary causes. Different levels of intelligence are quite common among the animal kingdom. You could also argue that self consciousness is a level of intelligence, albeit a very complicated form. One that has occurred just once in 4.5 billion years. Nevertheless, it is perfectly logical. At least it seems so to me.
I am not as awestruck by self consciousness as many seem to be. We have big brains that outgrew our basic survival needs on the ancestral plains. It seems natural that that we contemplate things like existence, art, and meaning, with leftover intelligence after basic needs are taken care of.
If you can’t explain why organisms with little brains aren’t self-conscious, then you can’t explain why organisms with big brains are self-conscious. Asserting that those with little brains aren’t and those with big brains are, isn’t an explanation; it’s an observation.
To offer a scientific explanation for some phenomenon you need to do more than just tell us it occurs "when and if"; you need to tell us
how it occurs. For example, even if we could build a computer as complex as the human brain, and even if we had good reason to suspect it is self-consciousness, that still wouldn’t suffice as an explanation for self-consciousness, since we don’t know how it occurred. It’s like saying babies are produced by intercourse: unless you tell us
how babies are produced by intercourse, you're just making an observation.