3 ms·
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 patte
by elefanten 4y ago
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 4y agoI 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 4y agoUm, 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_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_languag...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]