>Our last common ancestor was a worm with a very primitive nervous system, no brain and not even eyes.
Does it matter though? In the end octopuses evolved to be quite smart. That would imply some similar brain development, even if it was being done independently. The same way eyes would work and connect to their brains/nervous system more or less similarly.
Makes sense to expect design of later developed organs to match their function, despite the initial point of ancestoral divergence, is my point.
So similar designs for the development of function X that work, would be arrived at by many (most? all?) independent evolution processes.
Why would it be any more profound than any other common needs or functionality of two independently-evolved intelligences? Isn't this assumption begging the question?
Only if we a priori consider dreaming something very unique, or put it on a pedestal, would this be "profound". Whereas it could be an essential attribute of intelligent function, a kind of garbage collection from the information acquired during the day for example...
> if we a priori consider dreaming something very unique, or put it on a pedestal, would this be "profound". Whereas it could be an essential attribute of intelligent function
That’s the point. With N ~ 2, we have substance to believing it’s essential versus a fluke.
Does it matter though? In the end octopuses evolved to be quite smart. That would imply some similar brain development, even if it was being done independently. The same way eyes would work and connect to their brains/nervous system more or less similarly.
Makes sense to expect design of later developed organs to match their function, despite the initial point of ancestoral divergence, is my point.
So similar designs for the development of function X that work, would be arrived at by many (most? all?) independent evolution processes.