We are absolutely a brief incident in the context of the universe, but evolution doesn't make mistakes because evolution doesn't have a goal. Ultimately nothing changes because nothing matters already.

I guess it wouldn't mean shit, right?

meh. its just another layer that adds to the replication signal. where would meaning come into play?

It'd mean we're all gonna be just dirt in the ground.

Evolution dosen't make "mistakes" though, and there is no "progress" or "development"; those are probably self-deception by some lifeforms that are too self-aware.

Evolution just 'happens', and the resultant mix of lifeforms and traits mutually 'adapt' to the ecosystem and wider environment.

Also, I'd say self-awareness is an ancient concept going back many millions of years at the very least.

We humans tend to think of ourselves as unique among animals, but we are arguably share almost all of our internals and concepts with other animals.

Nothing, and everything.

But that's essentially how things work. A bubble in algea fluked a plant cell inside, attached to a root which could sway under it's own impulses... Enough time and it knew to avoid the summer heat, or pull tight when fish were eating near by.

You'd have the basis for reactionary and instinctive life. At some point the muck of cells accidentally happens chance into new variants until you get us.

We spend most of our time fearfully looking for problems and idealistically planning better ways to the futures we want. We're no different from the original muck avoiding harsh sun and predators.

The sense of our own planning, experience, or internal consciousness was a fluke, an accidental necessity for greater chances of survival, reproduction and furthering our accidental experimentations.

The successful breed more, the failed die off. Random chance determines your outcome. It's not intelligent. It's how it works. It works with chaos and time. We've been here a long time and are only just getting going.

Memory is also an instinct evolved from chaos. We remember bigger fuck ups because they cost us more, so those creatures who avoided bigger mistakes survived to breed more.

Internal consciousness is an evolution of instinct. It's not a separate or superior phase of it, it's an early part of the continium of the evolution of conscious awareness.

Plenty of animals show self awareness and even theories of mind (they model the personalities of those around them to predict outcomes).

There's plenty of other intelligent and self-aware beings around. It's more likely to be a communications issue that prevents us from readily perceiving the sophistication of other social species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind_in_animals

Articulate dialogue and dexterity of tool use are basically all that separates us from other species. We're no where near as superior as most people intuite. Your sense of superiority is an intuition, a guess.

Give seals, or dogs a voice box and hands, and they'd soon breed up the rest of what makes humans, human.

Whales, dolphins, elephants, dogs, and a massive number of animals clearly exhibit signs of being self aware and intelligence. Sure, it is mostly mammals that amass in groups which show the clearest sign, but a lot of birds show strong hints as well.

We aren't even the only animal that uses language or tools!

I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that many living animals aren't highly self-aware. What is it that you think separates humans so decisively?

Now if you talk about this late-stage, high-tech, message-dense civilisation being responsible for much of that, then I agree, but I'd also point out that it's a recent construction. Genetically we're still the same as our hunter-gatherer ancestors, who had none of that stuff.

So what would make those humans from about 6K - 12Kyrs so unique compared to other animals..?

I see dogs using those speech buttons on the internet and talking about their dreams to their owners and cannot believe that humans are the only animals with consciousness.

It has the goal of living.

Chickens are incredibly intelligent and self aware.

Self awareness is pretty common across multiple domains of life.

It's just pretty useful for organisms that have complex behaviours to be aware of themselves. The mirror test is actually a very high threshold and even that has heaps of species that can pass it.

It would mean whatever you want it to mean.

Presuming you are self-aware, this means that to at least some extent, you are capable of structuring how you view the external/global world vs your internal/local self.

But self awareness and the ability to interpret and consider things... that alone is not sufficient to inform specifically how you may or likely will construct and assign meaning, to anything.

It only means that you are capable of pondering what it means... specific conclusions can and have varied widely.

... Even my own description of self vs world as external and global vs internal and local... probably some would argue that is too specific a way of defining self-awareness, too limiting, other ways are possible.

That's just a happy little accident.

Entropy is the goal.

nothing. we make our own meaning that’s all

That's what my mom calls me

There’s nothing that I think should mean any species capable of experiencing shouldn’t also experience their self within the scope of their awareness. However, I think mankind is a logical kind of animal. Applying logic to the phenomenon of self awareness, e.g., asking about one’s character and goals, is likely unique to humans in my view.

What if self-awareness is ubiquitous and humans are the first to have awareness of others?

Evolution doesn't make mistakes because evolution just is. Like entropy, it’s just a kind of pattern/behavior that can emerge from complex systems.

Sometimes evolution leads animals to have traits that become unfavorable enough to prevent traits from being passed on; thats not a mistake, its literally the driving principle of evolution.

As for self awareness, theres lots of gray area in that term. However, social structures have emerged numerous times across the tree of life. Those structures require at least some self awareness. Very successful animals seem to have more self awareness than others because when you interact with beings like you it’s useful to know they are beings like you.

Point is that if knowing what other members of your species might be doing is useful to you or your species survival—which it typically is for tool weilding species—social awareness and self awareness will eventually be selected.

You aren’t self aware because evolution thought “I should make something self aware.” You’re self aware because thinking meant your ancestors could reproduce more. They invented language because naming things made thinking easier and allowed group thinking which allowed them to reproduce more. And eventually they named something “self awareness.”

Did anyone else see the humor in the way the question was asked?

"What would it mean"

Because you know, "meaning" is a concept that exists only within the context of awareness.

So if awareness were to disappear for whatever reason, there would suddenly be absolutely no meaning to anything, definitively.

Also, a side note, one could argue that evolution is entirely mistakes. Mutation and speciation, are a direct result of errors in DNA replication. Evolution can only happen as a result of mistakes.

Speaking of applying logic, that's what we typically do through science studies, which consistently show that other animals experience emotion and self-awareness to far higher degrees than previously understood.

asking about one’s character and goals, is likely unique to humans in my view.

I agree that modern man likely has the most articulated language that's ever existed on earth, which is a big part of that. But would hunter-gatherers have asked themselves about their 'character and goals' as part of their regular life? I don't know that such would be the case especially more than other humans or apes did or do. That said, keeping a nomadic, tool-using tribe going arguably would have required more of that than at any other level of organisation.

Which again suggests to me that a big part of that impetus comes from the level of civilisation I described. I think that's really what you're thinking of. Which hardly correlates to our genes at all.

That is inaccurate. Evolution is not about living at all. It’s about how organisms adapt to an environment across generations.