My approach is explored by considering Aristotelian Causal Categories, focusing on Final Cause. I then consider the possibility of understanding this question from an ‘internalist’ perspective.
When asked “Can Evolution be Conscious?” reactions can occur aptly reflecting the “informal definition” (as stated in most dictionaries) of schizoid, that is, “having inconsistent or seemingly contradictory elements.”
Human beings are subject to the workings of evolution and are also aware of their role as shapers of the environment so as to consciously direct evolutionary change.
To speak of an evolution of consciousness as a natural event is to be committed to the idea that consciousness can be a further expression of something which is not yet consciousness but is a prerequisite for the possibility of consciousness.
An evolutionary teleological view would be that no matter where you are in the cosmos, that there is, under the right conditions, a direction toward more complex, organized structures (both physical and non-physical).
Understanding the evolution of consciousness provides the scaffolding for evolutionary science itself to consciously evolve, and to help human individuals and groups do so as well.
How consciousness evolved and how consciousness has come to affect evolutionary processes are related issues.
No, evolution is not a conscious process, and to think so is an example of what philosophers call a category mistake, predicated on a fallacy of equivocation.
Every person is in a position to start consciously evolving their meaning systems for the groups in their own lives.
It is a sad reality that recognition for many scientists depends on their nationality and how much exposure they have obtained from the Global North rather than the intrinsic quality of their scientific research.
A conversation with Prof. Nicholas R. Jordan, founder of Forever Green which is one of the most ambitious efforts to transition from conventional farming practices to regenerative agriculture
Life history theory suggests that displays of luxury items provide signals with social goals.
Are there universal features of grammar and syntax?