Naturalism, Evolution, and the Self

If we take Naturalism as true, as biological reductionists and many of the modern 'Intellectuals' do, Evolution is reduced to a method for the advancement of the wholly material organism. Such an organism has only material, biological parts, parts which advanced its 'cause' of reproduction. Such a being, can only have attributes and parts that are naturally derived through Evolution, which necessitates those attributes and parts be of some evolutionary benefit or a byproduct of some other mutation which is more beneficial than detrimental.

So what of the concept of the Self? What evolutionary benefit is offered by a being understanding he is a being?

The Self, the idea that we are an introspective, feeling, living, existing, being, has no evolutionary benefit. The concept that ‘I be” lacks any evolutionary advantage. The amount of energy exerted into the process of the human aspect of being is biologically detrimental. Complex Life, could of evolved, and should of evolved, with no concept of the self. A robotic style of intellect, of input-output, would have been more beneficial, without the wasted resources trying to conceptualize what exactly is inputting and outputting.

An evolutionist would surely respond that the concept of the self is a byproduct of the evolution and over-complexity of the human brain and its problem solving abilities.

This is not a rebuttal I find valid, because to operate as a biological being, one has no need to understand metaphysical properties. Looking at the issue biologically, the human mind would be creating existential questions where there should be none. And I am supposed to believe such a massive intellectual step is the result of over-complexity? No. That is but a pseudo-solution.

Not only this, but the issue is why does an increase in intellect always result in an increase in self-awareness, unless self-awareness is necessarily the result of an increase in rational ability, of reason and truth manifesting.

A question, does a grasshopper have existential crises? Does he understand what it means ‘to be’?

If he cannot do the first, it is due to ignorance. Then he cannot do the second due to ignorance. This necessitates a link between reason and self-awareness.

And if reason points to self-awareness? Then there is no such thing as over-complexity of the human mind.

Rather, the Naturalists are the ones under-thinking.