Sentience doesn't exist

Kek

>evolutionary reasons
But evolution is literally blind to sentience unless materialism is false.

>But evolution is literally blind to sentience unless materialism is false.
What?
Let me try explaining again.
-changes in DNA that makes your brain be bigger than it actually is
-brain has more neurons
-thus more neural connections
-can now compute things it previously couldn't
-can now compute "i must eat to survive" instead of just "must eat"
-brain being bigger means its smarter and can do these things
-since its smarter it also survives more
-thus it spreads
The "i must eat to survive" is where consciousness started. Sentience. It's an illusion.

>I think therefore I am
I can prove it to myself, but not to you.

I used to unironically firmly believe in solipsism but then started going to Philosophy forums and saw that other people who I initially thought were just like NPCs also commonly asked the same kinds of questions. It makes me think that everyone who looks like a human such as myself also is conscious. Just because you can't perceive someone's consciousness doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

yep, but obviously it's impossible to prove anyone else is sentient. I'm glad you changed your mind because obviously I and everyone else is sentient, but a skeptic is justified in believing in solipsism.

>obviously x
>belief in not-x is justified
Maybe if x is obvious this shows the not-xers are doing something wrong.
Materialistic evolution can work on brains but it can't work on sentience. Sentience would have to get matter to do something it wouldn't normally do for it to possibly affect anything including evolution.

>Materialistic evolution can work on brains
Which is why it works on sentience.
>Sentience would have to get matter to do something it wouldn't normally do for it to possibly affect anything including evolution.
Nice special snowflake syndrome! What makes you think that sentience is not something matter can create? Are you suggesting it's something "immaterial" or maybe even "spiritual"? Do you also use geometric cosmologicalism as an argument for humans to be the center of the Universe?

I'm self aware, so your statement is easily disproven, as far as I care.

Sentience? As in the capacity to feel or perceive? I didn't think that one was up for debate. Fairly easy to confirm in even basic life forms.

Usually when we have one of these stupid threads, someone uses the term "consciousness" or at least "sapience", in one of the more spiritual or philosophical senses of the terms.

Now I could assume that's what you meant, but I'll bite it as presented and ask, how does one disprove sentience, without simply waving all reactions as simple consequence of determinism? (Which, even if that was the case, would do nothing to remove the fact that things react to stimuli.)