[xvilka]

Evolution would not allow waste of energy and complexity for just one on/off switch. Inefficient things die out in the course of millions of years. Neural tissue on itself is far older than humanity, so it had much more time to perfect.

[jacquesm]

> Evolution would not allow waste of energy and complexity for just one on/off switch. Inefficient things die out in the course of millions of years. Neural tissue on itself is far older than humanity, so it had much more time to perfect.

Sorry but that's not how evolution works at all. You are essentially postulating that evolution results in efficient outcomes given enough time whereas there are many, many examples of evolution delivering results but clearly sub-optimal ones. It's not a given that evolution will lead to an efficient solution, it's not even a given that it will lead to a solution at all.

[lukebitts]

That’s not true at all. If something is a waste but doesn’t meaningfully change yours odds of suvival, “evolution” won’t care

[xvilka]

Out there food and energy are often scarce. Evolution does care about efficiency in that particular case a lot. True, there are ecosystems with plenty of free food but they are rarity.

[jacquesm]

Evolution doesn't care about anything.

[runsWphotons]

it is possible this is not quite true

[jacquesm]

No, that is not possible.

[runsWphotons]

At least in plants there is some evidence that mutations produced and then acted on by natural selection are not fully random. It is a long held assumption this should not be possible, but there are interesting lines of evidence suggesting it may be. It would open the chance of there being a kind of (limited) underlying logic.

[golergka]

Peacocks, antlers, art.

[Lerc]

It is arguable all three have evolved for the same reason.