I am still puzzled here. I don't see how evolution explains the existence of the thing being selected.
Natural selection operates on the individual phenotypes. Mutations occur in the individual genotypes. Evolution occurs on the population.
There's all kinds of causes of mutations. Whether or not they stick in the population or not depends on how the changes to individuals' fitness to the environment are affected by the changes in their phenotype.
I guess I'm not sure what "thing" evolution doesn't explain? It doesn't explain how the first organisms got here - but that's not a part of the theory; it explains how life has gotten so diverse.
Those aren't homogeneous either... there are several types of neurons.
But your picture enhances my point that losing 90% of the brain and functioning normal is problematic for localisation and correlation claims.
Uh... "losing 90% of the brain and functioning normal" - that's a bit sensational. And I'm being nice about it. I checked your link, it really doesn't prove anything to me. That one pic looks shady, but it doesn't really matter - it's beside the point.
It was Taq who was claiming it was similar to losing intestine. I was granting him that the brain may have some flexibility due to reusing neurons elsewhere after brain damage.
Well, as far as we can tell on Earth, sentience requires a brain. And as I said in Message 68, my digestion isn't aware of itself like my sentience ("consciousness" - see Message 70) is. So they're already different to me.
Get back to me when you find a human without a brain who still functions normally.
This is naive.
It really isn't. If you have something that "functions normally" without a brain, then it isn't human.
Your claim that a person can function normally after "losing" 90% of their brain is unfounded - your link even uses the word "damaged", but still, it's beside the point.
I mentioned earlier vegetative states and other states where the presence of consciousness is unknown. You seem to be trying to describe consciousness as it appears to an observer observing someone else's behaviour but as I have said it is private and subjectivity.
You will never have the same access to my pain as I do.
Look, you and I are both sentient, and we exist on Earth. That's undeniable.
Whether or not I -appear- conscious to you is irrelevant. Dualism could be true easily and consciousness leave the body and enter another body or realm.
Sure, but forget what "could be". What IS?
What is relevant is whether or not you appear sentient to me. And you do (unlike a goldfish, although they do appear conscious, i.e. "awake").
What feature of consciousness are you picturing that can only exist in one brain at one time?
The ones that make us human are the ones that allow us to interact with each other out in the real world on Earth.
All the spiritual beings that I have encountered that appear sentient to me are not out there running around in the real world on Earth where everyone other human can see them too.
Apparently you need a brain to do that. That's not naive - the alternative is.