Darwinist theory doesn't seem to have much to say about it. Darwinists such as Pinker, Dawkins, Wilson, Lewontin, et al., seem to regard consciousness pretty much as an "illusion." But if they have to speak of it at all, they say it is an epiphenomenon of brain activity. Moreover, according to Wilson, evolution itself works to generate "useful illusions," such as moral theory (a construction of illusory mind or consciousness alone). What is the evidence that Nature is really in the business of producing illusions? Or is this just another ad hoc gap-filler that preserves one's preferred cosmology intact (e.g., Darwinist evolutionary theory, materialism, metaphysical naturalism, etc.) -- to make it "all come out right in the end?"
My larger point, however, was that both Darwinist theory and design theory are both products of mind, or consciousness. If mind is fictional, what can we say of its products? Both Darwinism and ID are constructions, or "designs" in their own right, and both seek to fill in the evidentiary gaps of their preferred theoretical approach. The great challenge to Darwinist evolution is the fact that it depends on a history of the biota, which is no longer available to direct inspection. Sure there are a zillion fossils. But like the shedded skin of a cobra, what can fossils tell you about the creatures that they once were? Can one really construct a genetic history from dead crusts -- other than a very superficial one, based on appearances, resemblances?
I would argue that there is an aspect of design involved with Darwinist theory: Its theorists have perceived what they consider to be a pattern in nature, and then go on to fill in the gaps of the evidentiary record with whatever appears to fit. The deeper ontological structure of Nature is ignored.
For sure!
(Hey what does onotological mean in the sense that you used it?)
I don't know how to say this, but you get all worked over an unsolved, and perhaps unsolvable, problem, as if talking about it and finding just the right words would solve it.
Not going to happen. we can learn about the properties of the brain, and we might even be able to replicate the functionality of the brain in silicon. But even that would not solve the problem as you see it.
I can't believe I am doing this but I can't resist. Your post cries out for it.
I saw a cross at a Church last Sunday and got an epiphany. I plan on writing a detailed explanation of where it came from and it's impact on me but is is as follows:
We live in not four, but five dimensions. The first three, height, width and depth, are shaped by the last two. The fourth is time, in which the first three exist.
The fifth dimension: Consciousness.
The explanation is going to take more than a few pages, so I'll leave it at that right now.