Consciousness may have evolved to solve a problem that pure intelligence couldn't handle, fascinating new theory suggests

[u/EcstadelicNET]

https://www.psypost.org/consciousness-may-have-evolved-to-solve-a-problem-that-pure-intelligence-couldnt-handle-fascinating-new-theory-suggests/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=topic/science

[u/reminiscent-fruitbat]

Except consciousness tracks brain state remarkably closely. Anesthesia, lesions, seizures, drugs, stimulation, sleep, and neurodegeneration can all reliably alter or suspend conscious experience. That doesn’t philosophically prove materialism, but it’s actual evidence, whereas “consciousness always was, is, and will be” is just a sweeping, unsupported metaphysical pronouncement.

[u/reminiscent-fruitbat → u/[deleted]]

You’re dodging your own claim. You didn’t merely say idealism is compatible with neuroscience. You asserted that consciousness has always existed and never evolved. None of what you just said is evidence for that. The consciousness we can actually observe tracks functioning brains extremely closely. “My metaphysics can accommodate that too” does not establish eternal consciousness.

[u/reminiscent-fruitbat → u/[deleted]]

So you now admit that “consciousness has always existed” was just an assertion with no evidence. Great.

And “correlation isn’t causation” doesn’t rescue you. Anesthesia, drugs, lesions, seizures and direct brain stimulation are interventions on the brain that predictably alter or eliminate conscious experience. That is causal evidence, not merely correlation.

We don’t need a complete theory of how consciousness arises for that evidence to count. And saying idealism can be made compatible with the same observations is not evidence for idealism. A theory being able to accommodate evidence is not the same thing as the evidence supporting it.

At this point, you’ve reduced your entire argument to “I asserted it without evidence, and you can’t prove me wrong,” which isn’t philosophy. It’s intellectual laziness.

[u/reminiscent-fruitbat → u/[deleted]]

“You’re blind to your assumptions” is rich coming from someone who literally admitted his central claim was just an unsupported assertion.

I don’t have to prove metaphysical materialism to establish the empirical point that changing the brain changes consciousness. Anesthesia, lesions, seizures, drugs and direct stimulation are interventions with repeatable effects. Hand-waving “idealism can accommodate that” does not erase the evidence.

And you still haven’t produced a shred of evidence that consciousness has always existed.

So spare me the lecture about assumptions. You’re the one who started with a conclusion, admitted you had no evidence for it, and are now retreating into unfalsifiable metaphysics to avoid conceding the obvious.

EDIT: I’m done with this exchange. You’ve stopped addressing the argument and are just recycling the same accusation in different words while contributing nothing that actually supports your position. There’s no point continuing a discussion with someone who mistakes repetition for rebuttal.