http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/0 ... -out-of-us
My Reaction: I am just not sure if evolution can breed fundamental reality out of us, because it relies on the the notion that fundamental reality/realism (physical/corporeal world) is completely separate from Evolution. In the article, the theory states Evolution as "the fittest" in terms of those best able to procreate their species within their environment, but how can a physical process of the fittest, with seemingly "a goal" to "better" reproduce, not be apart of reality, if that is how reality is defined by it's evolutionary processes (which requires energy), which in themselves are "movements", systems, and/or exchanges/transitions of matter within reality/space?
IMO I think there is better argument in coining it more that fundamental realism (objective reality) uses evolution to create "variation in species" and that within that variation may also include variation in conscious states and/or conscious awareness, providing species with neurodiversity, which is how some can have "subjective" reality. It might be like saying that physical matter produces (Objective-Objectism) those that see that macro realism or those that see a subset and/or semi-limited realisms of that realism (Objective-Subjectism) and those that can do this (escapism) have a better chance at being "more fit" --this makes sense if we look at humanity as being able to "create" our own evolutionary processes, until we realize that humanity sometimes uses it's tools just as volatile as non-human nature (forces)...
The other thing that problematic IMO, is that we don't know enough about consciousness to conclude how sentinel intelligence came or can come to exist, ---if objective realism and/or evolution does not also have a will or consciousness in order to be able to produce it and/or be able to produce something that can understand it on a fundemental level (science/math/physics) or what creates "space" or "consciousness" if not energy, force, or evolution? So it's unclear then what it is that drives fundamental reality, if energy (something that supposibly can not be created or destroyed), unless we are going to demote fundamental reality to only a space (Universe) or spaces (everything in it), but it still does not account for purpose or origin of movement, even if that purpose is something as simple as procreation and/or "growth" of matter? What comes first the energy, the space, or the matter?
What would be the purpose of creating a being that can fundamentally (nature) be empirical (sensory information and nurture contribute to feelings from experience) and become idealists (believing in those feelings), if reality would be closed and/or predetermined by being said and done (if time is a flat circle), and it is only energy (energy's relationship or distance with matter changes the speed of time, time is measurement or rate at which something exists and/or evolves) that allows us to see any reality/space/evolution at all? How is that a procreational advantage, if we are capable of understanding that as one of our realities? And how can you understand something that is allegedly "bred" out of you?
Ok. I'm done. I need to go to bed and reread some George Berkeley and some continental philosophers.