With over nearly 7,000 positive reviews on Amazon and a 4.4/5 rating, it's not hard to see why the Gskyer telescope is a fan-favorite. This option features a 70mm aperture and fully coated optimal lenses to offer a crisp, clear view of the night's sky. Tech savvy stargazers will appreciate the smart phone adapter and wireless camera remote, making it possible to view constellations from your screen. Thanks to its adjustable, aluminum alloy tripod, this telescope is suitable for every member of the family.
Uh you didn't really do a good job responding to the argument, it seems like you didn't even read it properly and instead want to nitpick semantics.
The point of the argument is, if phenomenal consciousness doesn't have a causal effect on the material world, why did we evolve it? If something is to evolve, that something has to have some causal feedback loop with nature, and in a physicalist viewpoint this is not so.
You could argue phenomenal consciousness is an accident (a spandrel is the official term I think) but it's a hell of an accident if you ask me. I don't think you can really convince me that something that doesn't have a causal effect in nature evolved to align so well with what's happening in nature.
It's literally in the rest of the article, you should probably just read it in its entirety.
I literally JUST told you that this is not how evolution works, all you’re doing is restating the false premise.
The article is shit, the argument is shit, in fact it’s not even really an argument, it’s only an assertion so there’s not much more to respond to.
Then how does it work then?
Uh okay, I literally just wanted to have a discussion, why be a dipshit about it?
Also you do realize "matter is the only substance and everything comes from it" is also "just an assertion"? The point is to argue your assertions.
Harmful traits are selected against, positive traits aren’t selected for, evolution is not some teleological process where every trait has a “why”, it’s a process of random mutations. Forgive me if I can’t take seriously an argument that revolves entirely around a fictitious version of evolution, the author couldn’t take it seriously himself by actually reading something about how evolution works first before making it the cornerstone of his argument.
You started being a “dipshit” claiming I didn’t read the whole article when I did, starting your comment with the purposely pretentious reddit “uh”, shut up. Nothing more obnoxious than somebody who does this crap and plays victim when their shit gets flung back at them.
Sure, but for natural selection to work you need some causal feedback loop, right? The evolved traits in the end need to interact with matter so they can be judged by nature (in the abstract sense of course, I don't want you accusing me of believing in Gaia or whatever) as positive or negative. They "why" is the mechanism of natural selection, and I just don't see how consciousness fits there.
Also you didn't respond to my "spandrel" argument at all, which is what you're seemingly implying consciousness is, correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Fair point I guess, but you still escalated for no good reason, but fine we can do the debatebro shit, I can take it.
What is the negative effect of consciousness on the ability to pass down one’s genes that would cause it to definitely be selected against to the point that anybody could say it “couldn’t have evolved”?
It's not about consciousness being either positive or negative, by definition it has to be neutral from a physicalist perspective since all is matter and consciousness is wholly a product of matter and by itself has no chance of showing itself as either positive or negative. So a physicalist view kinda forces you to think of consciousness as an accident in evolution.
Now if it's an accident why has consciousness even evolved in the exact way it did given these physicalist assumptions? It seems to have no reason to, unless you bring into the picture an intelligent designer or that it's this one in a trillion accident, both of which seem unlikely to me.
To me (and the author of the article) it would make much more sense to assume consciousness itself is a basic substance of existence.
It is about that. You can’t make a convincing case that something “could not have evolved” unless it has a negative affect on the ability to survive or reproduce, or is not heritable.
It could have evolved, but if it has no causal effect then you can only regard it as a "evolutionary spandrel", or an accident basically. Neutral traits exist.
The whole point of the argument is examining whether declaring it a spandrel makes sense. I don't think it does.