If evolution is self-replicating matter adapting to presented

>>8137144
Evolution is not adaption. Evolution is a population-wide change in genes. This does not necessarily mean the population has adapted to anything. And it does not mean such changes are "necessary," whatever you think that means.

>>8137144
niche adaptation

Who says sentience evolved? Perhaps it's more of an "after effect".

>>8137144
i think the answer lies in memetic theory

basically, everything's a meme :)

>>8137144
It's not necessary but it helps. Also, that is a terrible definition of evolution.

>>8137144
I think """"sentience"""" is propably a side-effect of general intelligence, which ofcourse was a good evolutionary trait.

>>8137144
because it's easier building a raft to cross a deep river than it is to evolve fins

>>8137144
The brain evaluates sensory input in light of previous experiences, to estimate optimal behavior output.

This process is called sentience. The evolutionary function is pretty obvious.

>>8137144
Life on this planet was in no particular hurry to develop a sentient species. Even after the first fish went on dry land, evolution spent hundred of millions of years with all kinds of other shit.

The usual depiction “single cell morphs into fish morphs into ape morphs into Homo” to illustrate evolution is extremely misleading. It’s more like “nature tries every other possibility first before accidentally developing a sentient species.”

To split the question into two: why intelligence? And why sentience?

Since brains are very energy-consuming organs, most species have a severe selective pressure to develop the smallest brains they can get away with. There are still some ecological niches where higher intelligence is advantageous, so you have remarkably smart ravens, quite intelligent dolphins and the like, and occasionally, you have apes using tools and languages and clothes and moon rockets. But it’s rare.

Why sentience? I don’t know. It might be a strange side effect of developing language: people start to silently talk to themselves to simulate the possible outcomes of potential future situations, and that turns into sentience. Perhaps. Or something else. I guess it would be easier to speculate how consciousness developed if we understood consciousness better. Consciousness also only leaves indirect fossils, and its genetics are barely understood.

>>8138351
Also note how bacteria and archae and plants and fungi and a lot of animals like sponges get along without any intelligence whatsoever just fine.

>>8138351
I think you assume too many conditions for sentience. It's plausible that fish and even insects can experience the world in a rudimentary way.

If you have complex behavior that is not hard-wired by instinct but modulated by learning and emotional tone, you already have the conditions for rudimentary sentience.

It's not like you need abstract reasoning or language for it.