Why things evolve?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think that progression is maturation. Why should the biosphere have an unordered life when everything within it does? I think it more likely that the biosphere itself is moving into a reproductive phase than the "humans as cancer/parasite/evil spirits" notions.

Progress is an all too human idea. Nature does not give a shit. You think complexity is progress; why not simplicity?

When a moth moves into a reproductive stage do you think it's behaving consciously? That it "gives a shit"? So why assume that a maturing biosphere moving into its reproductive phase is acting consciously?

I think the denial of this biosphere maturing process is the more anthropocentric view - the idea that humans are independent agents, not in some ways controlled by the planet.

All evidence point to consciousness being a phenomenon of neural tissue.; late evolving in the universe and post dating the vast majority of evolution; it is also discrete to developing organisms; disconnected except by clumsy language.
So - what the fuck are you trying to pull here?
Neural tissue enables us to be agents and not just puppets of causality. Every appearance is saved by exactly the proposition that evolution is the result of differential selection by natural wastage and reproductive success; automatic, not directed, but directionless.

And as for the moth - I can't tell if it gives a shit- I doubt it. One thing is for sure they do not wake up one morning and decide its time for pupation.

[Greta]

Progress is an all too human idea. Nature does not give a shit. You think complexity is progress; why not simplicity?

When a moth moves into a reproductive stage do you think it's behaving consciously? That it "gives a shit"? So why assume that a maturing biosphere moving into its reproductive phase is acting consciously?

I think the denial of this biosphere maturing process is the more anthropocentric view - the idea that humans are independent agents, not in some ways controlled by the planet.

All evidence point to consciousness being a phenomenon of neural tissue.; late evolving in the universe and post dating the vast majority of evolution; it is also discrete to developing organisms; disconnected except by clumsy language.
So - what the fuck are you trying to pull here?
Neural tissue enables us to be agents and not just puppets of causality. Every appearance is saved by exactly the proposition that evolution is the result of differential selection by natural wastage and reproductive success; automatic, not directed, but directionless.

And as for the moth - I can't tell if it gives a shit- I doubt it. One thing is for sure they do not wake up one morning and decide its time for pupation.

Correct. The moth probably doesn't care, aside from "driven" actions that can be thought of as akin to "scratching an itch". Still, it goes through its processes leading to reproduction anyway. I think the biosphere is doing the same. I would have once been as leery as you about it. What convinces me is the way humans are approaching space travel - the result is going to be retention of some Earthly information elsewhere in space.

What is reproduction but the production of a small, mostly informational, representation of yourself that is capable of growing independently? What are humans doing? Leaving, small, informational representations of the Earth, plus the technology it produced via humans, either of which may continue the process of evolution, not to mention bacterial passengers.

The Earth doesn't mean to breed. Humans don't mean to be the biosphere's seed carriers for (being too busy ATM trying to find out how to make off-world mining profitable). Yet it seems to me that products of the Earth could continue to grow and develop long after the planet itself has been engulfed by the Sun, just as products of parents outlast the parents.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Correct. The moth probably doesn't care, aside from "driven" actions that can be thought of as akin to "scratching an itch". Still, it goes through its processes leading to reproduction anyway. I think the biosphere is doing the same..

And like the moth - the 'biosphere' is not conscious, so why are you wasting your brain cells pretending it is?

[Greta]

Correct. The moth probably doesn't care, aside from "driven" actions that can be thought of as akin to "scratching an itch". Still, it goes through its processes leading to reproduction anyway. I think the biosphere is doing the same..

And like the moth - the 'biosphere' is not conscious, so why are you wasting your brain cells pretending it is?

At no point have I even slightly suggested that the biosphere is conscious. You keep trying to pin the idea to me. Baby, we can't go on together, with suspicious minds ...

I'm just talking about the biosphere maturing and seemingly reaching a reproductive stage, one where it can send regenerating things to other worlds via human activity. If reproduction was an activity that required conscious awareness there would be no plants, fungi or invertebrates around.

[Terrapin Station]

Order is objective as an opposite to chaos, but quantifying is difficult due to the many ways that things can be ordered. . .

Are you using the mathematical sense of "chaos"?

[OuterLimits]

There is no objective evidence of subjective experience - particularly for the reductive physicalist. Galaxies form on their own, without "conscious" direction. So it is with solar systems, a vortex in the atmosphere, or in the ocean, the evolution of life, pumping hearts, pulsing brains, cities, books of poetry. If all this is physics, then there is no need for - nor room for - subjective awareness to perform mind over matter to guide or push these patterns to emerge. Are they more "ordered" ? Are they more "developed"? Surely some of this is in the mind of the beholder. Other aspects can be quantified well by concepts such as regions of reduced entropy. Or you can eschew reductive physicalism - perhaps with the help of quantum mysteries - but science can either succeed or fail at explaining everything reductively. Quantum sends science back to the drawing board. Many-worlds creates an elegant way to simply give up.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no objective evidence of subjective experience -.

You have that exactly backwards.

Every thing stems from perception, and what we do with it. We have nothing but subjective experience. The task is to make statements that have objective appeal to others who also have subjective experience,

[Terrapin Station]

There is no objective evidence of subjective experience

Sure there is. One example of evidence is someone saying, "I feel good." (And they might add, "I knew that they would.") Of course, it's not going to seem like subjective experience from an objective reference point, but that's not required for there to be evidence of subjective experience from an objective reference point.

If all this is physics, then there is no need for - nor room for - subjective awareness

I don't know if you'd agree with stopping there, as well. If so, I disagree with you. The room for subjective awareness on a physicalist account is that subjective awareness is a property of particular phyiscal stuff.

I don't know if you're using "reductive physicalist" as a synonym for "eliminative materialist" though. I'm a physicalist, but I'm not an eliminative materialist.

[OuterLimits]

There is no objective evidence of subjective experience -.

You have that exactly backwards.

Every thing stems from perception, and what we do with it. We have nothing but subjective experience. The task is to make statements that have objective appeal to others who also have subjective experience,

I have no objective evidence of another's subjective experience - if I am convinced that physics underlies phenomena.

I have nothing but subjective experience - and heck for all I know there is no objective world.

[OuterLimits]

A doll can say "I feel good." Is that evidence for observers that it has subjective experiences? For a small child or a credulous adult, it is evidence enough.

There is always the possibility that it is "subjectively like something" to be my neighbor, or an ATM, or a rock, but shouldn't I be skeptical - especially after I've encountered a talking doll or two?

[Terrapin Station]

A doll can say "I feel good." Is that evidence for observers that it has subjective experiences?

If it has a functioning human brain.

There is always the possibility that it is "subjectively like something" to be my neighbor, or an ATM, or a rock, but shouldn't I be skeptical

Again, not if they have functioning human brains.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no objective evidence of subjective experience -.

You have that exactly backwards.

Every thing stems from perception, and what we do with it. We have nothing but subjective experience. The task is to make statements that have objective appeal to others who also have subjective experience,

I have no objective evidence ........

That is where you have to stop. You cannot go further.
Evidence itself is not objective. Objectivity comes though comparing the evidence of others and by agreement with your language community arrive at criteria upon which to measure and assess experience.
This can be achieved reductively by discrete experiments that use the concepts of physics.

[OuterLimits]

That is where you have to stop. You cannot go further.
Evidence itself is not objective. Objectivity comes though comparing the evidence of others and by agreement with your language community arrive at criteria upon which to measure and assess experience.
This can be achieved reductively by discrete experiments that use the concepts of physics.

Can you see the contradiction? It goes to the heart of the point I'm making.

Just as you can't use any of your experiences to prove you are NOT a brain in a vat,
in the same way you can't use any of your experiences to prove that other people are NOT zombies.

Objectivity is a mode any individual is capable of - even if they are all by themselves on an island.

You mistake objectivity for "being reasonable" - which is a social mode. What is "the evidence of others" - you refer to the report-behaviors generated by others (who for all you know may be zombies.)

The whole point of science is that only budgetary and time constraints prevent you from doing it all by yourself. No social "agreements" are relevant.

[Hobbes' Choice]

That is where you have to stop. You cannot go further.
Evidence itself is not objective. Objectivity comes though comparing the evidence of others and by agreement with your language community arrive at criteria upon which to measure and assess experience.
This can be achieved reductively by discrete experiments that use the concepts of physics.

Can you see the contradiction? It goes to the heart of the point I'm making.

Just as you can't use any of your experiences to prove you are NOT a brain in a vat,
in the same way you can't use any of your experiences to prove that other people are NOT zombies.

Objectivity is a mode any individual is capable of - even if they are all by themselves on an island.

You mistake objectivity for "being reasonable" - which is a social mode. What is "the evidence of others" - you refer to the report-behaviors generated by others (who for all you know may be zombies.)

The whole point of science is that only budgetary and time constraints prevent you from doing it all by yourself. No social "agreements" are relevant.

No, I am insisting that being objective is about being socially reasonable; nothing more. Objectivity requires you to allow collectivising your ideas, with others. I can't see that it can be more than that, for the very reasons you suggest.

I do not care if they are zombies. because they conform enough to what I consider myself to be. If they are zombies then so am I. And I can accept objective positions just so long as they continue to be reasonable and to work.
I think you are arguing against a person that is not really disagreeing with you except in the mode of explanation.
I'm an idealist empiricist who accept that we live among objectively real things, until such times as that position seems reasonable.

[OuterLimits]

A doll can say "I feel good." Is that evidence for observers that it has subjective experiences?

If it has a functioning human brain.

There is always the possibility that it is "subjectively like something" to be my neighbor, or an ATM, or a rock, but shouldn't I be skeptical

Again, not if they have functioning human brains.

This is a model or a theory. A certainty. To be like something is to have a functioning human brain, and to have a functioning human brain is to be like something.

Did you discover this at some point in your life, or were you born with the knowledge?