[stormbrew]

> And since evolution hates inefficiency, that means it must have a purpose.

Evolution doesn't hate or love anything, and everything evolved does not have a purpose. Evolution is a theoretical framework developed by humans to describe some things that happen in the world they observe, not a guiding force or a god.

It's honestly kind of amazing that you appear to have ascribed consciousness to evolution in an argument for the human uniqueness of consciousness.

[elefanten]

This seems like an overly narrow reading of gp. One does not have to anthropomorphize evolution to speculate that consciousness would likely have fit this pattern of “some things that happen”

If you’re taking “hates” literally… it’s probably a misreading

[stormbrew]

I think the idea that evolution has a purpose and a direction is more than common enough that when someone says something like that things that evolve never lack a purpose, they've gone wrong in their understanding of evolution, even if only in subtle ways they may not be aware of themselves.

Anyways, I think the juxtaposition is funny no matter how seriously they meant it. We all want to believe that consciousness is something that can be easily defined and yet our use of aspects of it is extremely fuzzy.

[dibujante]

Um, no, the idea that evolution has a telos is dumb. Anthropomorphization is a useful short-hand. Nature has no opinions about a vacuum. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_languag...