...for the sake of brevity [and because, much as I'd like to, I just don't have time to research everything] I'm going to respond to this post rather than the longer one by Joe Dees [Which I am saving - primarily because of the 'fishbasket' thing]
...and have I mentioned yet how much I like you people?
> There is a big difference between contributing to the whole of
> reality through conscious acts, and consciousness being responsible
> for evolution. a successful species, be it a virus or a human,
alters
> the nature of the world around it, and in ripples out from it, but
is
> still an effect of evolution, not a cause.
...assuming for a moment that you're correct, why evolve at all? The virian manifesto [such as it is] suggests that the meaning of life is in its effects, but by what standard do we then attribute value to effects? Why, in that view are the events in Littleton Colorado [to select the most recent volatile example I can think of] bad?
> trying to be concise - you have the donkey before the carrot. The
> car must be started, before it can be driven: the first molecules of
> life had to form before evolution got a start.
...you're right. What I want to do is invest this development with significance. At present, it has none.
> Consciousness may have an effect, but it is after the fact.
-psypher