Have you ever thought why nature did not place eyes on the back of people and animals, but only on the front? - They would certainly be more protected, right? It could not be because of insufficient processing power of the brain, since it is 90% unused. It is certainly not because there is no space on the body, because there is plenty of space. What could it be then? The only reason that I could think of is unusual, but real and complete.

Differences between entities allow us to distinguish them. Entities are also defined by their properties. A related question then could be formulated as "which entities are defined by our eyes?" The answer is obvious – the entities defined by the eyes are the relative directions of their owner – the eyes define in front and behind, forward and backward. Everything directly in front of the sight is forward and everything directly behind is backward. If people and animals had eyes on their bodies located in such a way that would allow them to see in all directions simultaneously then there would be only one direction – in front, every direction would be forward including what would otherwise be backward.

In order to be able to define directions people and animals need to have eyes on one side only and that side defines in front (face). This is more than just an abstract understanding as we will see.

Let us assume that evolution in the traditional biological sense exists (1). In order to evolve and develop intelligence a non intelligent brain must be aware of the concept of directions. This is because the ability to design an algorithm is required for intelligence and it requires understanding of the concept of directions. Every algorithm involves directed progression, i.e. direction of progression. Therefore to understand directions a creature either has to already be intelligent, or become intelligent by having the concept for directions (necessary but insufficient condition) enforced on it by a non-intelligent means. In other words in order to produce intelligence the evolution had to define directions by placing sight on only one side of the body. Producing intelligence must have been the objective of evolution otherwise the non-intelligent species including the ancestors of the intelligent (only humans) would have received sight in all directions as a defensive mechanism, which would eliminate the possibility for intelligence to evolve. This means that a non-intelligent evolution (2) must have understood (3) the requirement for Definition of Direction in order to be able to produce intelligence. Obviously (2) contradicts (3) and therefore the assumption (1) that we made in the beginning that "evolution in the traditional biological sense exists" is false. Therefore evolution in the traditional biological sense does not exist. Here I made the assumption that evolution develop always in an optimal way – this is firstly presumed by the theory of evolution, and secondly still under the assumption (1) in all known cases any mutation that is observed is degrading and has negative impact on the organism, hence the product of evolution (assuming it exists) is always optimal.

Miroslav B. Bonchev, MSc CS