Anthropic Principle meets consciousness
I was inspired by a bit of discourse from some other threads, and was wanting to share some analogies to some so-called physical axioms vis-a-vis human value systems. Below are three models:
Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity
The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind
The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.
Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of reality), or just a product of human experience? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such complexity?
Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity
The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.
Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind
The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.
Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans
Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.
In any of these models, which include a large amount of complexity, is there an element of genuine transcendence (of reality), or just a product of human experience? How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such complexity?
Comments (67)
Personally, I am not convinced that everything happens through random mutations, natural selection and chance, but I am aware that my view is probably a minority view on this site. I do think that the dominant paradigm of our times wishes to reduce ideas like transcendence to the fabrications of ego psychology. At times, I feel so disheartened that I wish to give up any pursuit of exploration. However, on a deeper level, I do believe that we are more than just aspects and subjects arising from matter, and that the development of consciousness has some importance in the grand scheme of life, which goes beyond mere coincidental occurrences.
Thanks Jack!
Indeed, I share your thoughts. There is much common sense thinking that goes along with those truncated models of anthropy.
We know that there is a certain amount of randomness and uncertainty as uncovered in the physical world through QM, mathematical structures, and so on. However, this is distinct from there being complete chaos...
An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias, or illusion; nature is not fine-tuned for us, rather we fine-tune our concepts and models to nature.
Consciousness does not arise from matter.
Subjects do not arise from matter either.
Transcendence (Spinoza, Deleuze) makes as much sense as north of the north pole or disembodied self.
David Deutsch proposes that, in the grand scheme of things, the significance of human beings shows whenever we create knowledge (i.e. falsifiable, provisional, theories – good explanations – of how physical transformations of states-of-affairs (can be caused to) happen) and wonder at – revere – 'the grand scheme of things'.
Chaos is not randomness.
Please share your theory. How does your statement square with random mutation and genetic accident?
180!
How is that..., can you provide examples to your supposition? I like your notion of some sort of illusionary element to the conscious mind (abstractness, metaphysical structure, unexplained phenomena, perception of Time, and the like), which is one argument. But the other part of fine-tuning is intriguing. How is this fine tuning done by the human mind?
Don't forget to include something v. nothing in your response. Meaning, include inanimate physical matter in your thought process. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution. We can ferret all that stuff out later based upon your reply...
Quoting 180 Proof
What does consciousness/subjects arise from?
Quoting 180 Proof
Of course it's not. No exceptions taken.
Scientists used to focus on the Random Mutation element of Darwinian Evolution, probably because it eliminated any notion of divine creation. But, especially since the Information Age, more attention has been paid to Natural Selection, as a means to choose from among the novel structures produced by accidental aggregation. Now scientists are using the basic principles of Evolution to design systems that will try millions of options virtually, in order to select the one that produces the best fit for their stated purposes.
Those programmers must begin by establishing Initial Conditions as a starting point that seems to be close to the desired outcome, Then they add Rules & Standards (laws) to guide the program in the right direction. But the actual processing of that setup information is basically a random sequence of trials & errors, and re-tries, as the imperfections are weeded-out. The final solutions are often unexpected, and somewhat complex, but tend to be less complicated than some of the rejected options. So, the goal is not complexity per se, but optimum organization of components. The Intelligence of the programmer is encoded into the program to serve as a value system to guide the selection mechanism. The selection criteria (choices) are able to extract functional organization from dysfunctional disorder.
If you think of Natural Evolution as a program, with pre-set limits (conditions), and a means to generate a variety of novel solutions (random mutations), plus design criteria (laws) to define the best fit for a particular role (niche) in the ecosystem, then the notion of a Programmer, with values & intentions begins to make sense. You were correct to imply that Randomness typically results in disorder & entropy. So, some design intent is necessary to produce functional organization & fruitful conducive complexity. Therefore, we can guess that the path from simple beginnings (raw matter) could eventually lead to organized complexity (brains), and thence to novel functions, such as self-directed Minds.
The Human Mind is not a concrete thing, but the abstract function of the most complex system (brain) in the universe. The neural network may even utilize evolutionary principles to optimize control of the body. And a mental self-image provides the necessary distinction between self & other. So, how could genetic accidents and random mutations explain such functional complexity? The world system (nature) must have been designed (programmed) to work toward that end : The Anthropic Principle. But, the evolutionary program hasn't halted yet. So the ultimate output may require even further refinement, and remains to be computed. :nerd:
Evolutionary Computation :
The method: evolutionary computation. EC is a computational intelligence technique inspired from natural evolution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/evolutionary-computation
180!
I'm confused. Why did you even comment then. Did you not expect to get questioned?
Are you trolling my threads again? Are you an angry atheist?
I will be copying the moderator's on your posts. (Here we go again with the angry Atheist routine :joke: )
Gnomon!
I agree with this. Using logic, it would be not that much different than making the synthetic a priori judgement, which is used in physics that: all events must have a cause! It drives proposition's that can be tested.
Thank you, I will ponder that which you wrote and reply soon!
Poor thing, we know. :sweat:
Sure did. Not from you, though, since it's all gibberish and woo-sy babytalk from you and never any relevant, or non-rhetorical, questions. Can you even tell the difference between a question and a pseudo-question, 3017? :roll:
Of course not. Chatting with a troll isn't trolling, troll.
Btw, I was responding to @Jack Cummins. My bad. But no need for you to respond to me given our extensive and tediously one-sided history.
I'm a freaky freethinker, son.
:yikes:
https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/yeast-study-suggests-genetics-are-random-but-evolution-is-not-20140911/
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium/a/hardy-weinberg-mechanisms-of-evolution
Scientists used to focus on the Random Mutation element of Darwinian Evolution, probably because it eliminated any notion of divine creation. But, especially since the Information Age, more attention has been paid to Natural Selection, as a means to choose from among the novel structures produced by accidental aggregation. Now scientists are using the basic principles of Evolution to design systems that will try millions of options virtually, in order to select the one that produces the best fit for their stated purposes.
Those programmers must begin by establishing Initial Conditions as a starting point that seems to be close to the desired outcome, Then they add Rules & Standards (laws) to guide the program in the right direction. But the actual processing of that setup information is basically a random sequence of trials & errors, and re-tries, as the imperfections are weeded-out. The final solutions are often unexpected, and somewhat complex, but tend to be less complicated than some of the rejected options. So, the goal is not complexity per se, but optimum organization of components. The Intelligence of the programmer is encoded into the program to serve as a value system to guide the selection mechanism. The selection criteria (choices) are able to extract functional organization from dysfunctional disorder.
If you think of Natural Evolution as a program, with pre-set limits (conditions), and a means to generate a variety of novel solutions (random mutations), plus design criteria (laws) to define the best fit for a particular role (niche) in the ecosystem, then the notion of a Programmer, with values & intentions begins to make sense. You were correct to imply that Randomness typically results in disorder & entropy. So, some design intent is necessary to produce functional organization & fruitful conducive complexity. Therefore, we can guess that the path from simple beginnings (raw matter) could eventually lead to organized complexity (brains), and thence to novel functions, such as self-directed Minds.
The Human Mind is not a concrete thing, but the abstract function of the most complex system (brain) in the universe. The neural network may even utilize evolutionary principles to optimize control of the body. And a mental self-image provides the necessary distinction between self & other. So, how could genetic accidents and random mutations explain such functional complexity? The world system (nature) must have been designed (programmed) to work toward that end : The Anthropic Principle. But, the evolutionary program hasn't halted yet. So the ultimate output may require even further refinement, and remains to be computed. :nerd:
Evolutionary Computation :
The method: evolutionary computation. EC is a computational intelligence technique inspired from natural evolution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/evolutionary-computation
That's a fact, Jack! And, as Banno said : "Natural selection is not random, nor chance". The Greeks vaguely understood that Nature was characterized by two opposing forces : Good vs Evil, Or, what we now call constructive Energy and destructive Entropy, or future-oriented Positive vs dead-end Negative. So Plato proposed a scenario -- based on intuition, not empirical science -- in which orderly Cosmos was organized from disorderly Chaos by divine Logos (reason). But, modern Chaos theorists have found that in every disorganized system there is a "seed" of hidden order. So, it shouldn't be surprising that the random element of evolution is offset to some degree by the non-random action of Natural Selection. Hence, it's the logical act of "selection" that extracts Order from within Disorder, and Cosmos from Chaos. That's also why Banno's terse epigram is a true statement. And your equally brief assertion is correct, but incomplete.
Therefore, we -- you and I, as philosophers -- need to complicate those succinct quips by asking "why"?. Why, and How, did increasing degrees of organization emerge from an inherently disorganized process of un-guided roiling atoms? Indeed, how could our organic world arise from such an un-promising beginning as a cosmic explosion (big bang) in nothingness?. As in the OP, how could Mind emerge from dumb Matter? Logically, there are only two explanations : A> the familiar creative system of laws we call "Nature" has always existed, eternally. Or B> some other mysterious creative Cosmic "entity" has always existed. So, which is the hidden creative "organizing force" in Nature that makes your statement a fact?
Since the Enlightenment, a hidden divinity is not a permissible solution to any mystery. So answer is the preferred choice for most Materialists : matter naturally contains the hidden seeds of organization, and it has always repeatedly created baby universes for no particular reason. In which case, the hypothetical Multiverse is given most of the basic characteristics of a God : eternal, infinite, creative. But not the most important features for emerging order : Intelligence & Intention. Hence, the Multiverse creates its offspring via a blind, stochastic process of one accident after another, with no teleological direction at all. This seems to go counter to your assertion that Chaos is not really random, but has some hidden inherent tendency-toward-meaningful-order, that we know only by inference. Also to Banno's denial that evolution is a game of Chance. So, how does future-oriented Probablity arise from dis-oriented Randomness? Or how do those opposites harmonize? And how does the "Arrow of Time" emerge from directionless haphazard Change?
Considering those open questions, the OP query was not answered, but merely brushed-away with mis-direction. Wherefore then, the did the ordering and organizing principles of Nature originate? To say "they are innate", suggests a humanoid Mother Nature fostering and disciplining her beloved children. But the typical picture of the non-motherly Multiverse has no explanation for the emergence of Love & Hate, or any other "Intentional Stance" (consciousness) from the blind, random "confluence of atoms". If Nature is "not a game of chance", then it must be guided by some teleological intention. It's as if, Mother Nature nurtures aspirations for the future of her children. So, how do you explain why "Chaos is not Random"? Is somebody cheating? :joke:
Anthropic principle :
The anthropic principle is a group of principles attempting to determine how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in a particular type of universe to start with.[1] In other words, scientific observation of the universe would not even be possible if the laws of the universe had been incompatible with the development of sentient life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the notion that the universe seems to be fine tuned.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Hidden Order :
How Adaptation Builds Complexity
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183954.Hidden_Order
Hidden Order in Chaos :
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/discover-the-hidden-order-in-chaos/
EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative agency that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : "The creative impulse of Evolution"; "the power to enform"; "Logos"; "Directed Change".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Gnomon!
There's a whole lot to discuss but let me just start there. (I want to explore more from your post.)
Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.
But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd.
So your notion of "desired outcome" has indeed some level of logical truth to it... .
"The fanatical atheists, are like [prisoners] who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres." Albert Einstein
Quoting Gnomon
Nonlinear dynamic systems are deterministic.
Charitably, G, you've been playing tennis without a net for a long ... long ... long ... time. :clap:
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
You've outdone yourself! Such profound simplicity indicates you've done your homework well. A+ for you 3017amen.
The issue it seems is not whether the ends [Mind, Humans, Organized Complexity] can come about with/without an intelligent agency (god/creator) working on the beginnings [Matter, Primates, Initial conditions] but whether the two possibilities - a god-created universe vs a universe without one - can be distinguished from each other in the first place!
See: Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox
You're correct of course 180 Proof - Occam's Razor would neatly consign the god hypothesis to the scrap heap - but...I've been meaning to relate a story to anyone who cares to listen. It goes like this: On a cool, starlit night John was looking out the window of his apartment at the nearby mountains. He could make out a row of streetlights in the distance, all in a perfect straight, extending from one side of the mountain to another. He thought to himself, that road the streetlights are for must be pretty straight. He went to sleep on that thought and soon forgot all about it.
A couple of months later, John had to make a trip to another city and that meant he had to take the same road he saw earlier. He did and what did he discover? The road was winding, hugging the natural curves of the mountain. The straight line of streetlights was an illusion. Moral of the story: It's complicated. So much for Occam's Razor!
:lol:
[quote=H. L. Mencken]For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.[/quote]
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another." ~Ambrose Bierce
Not impossible but truth be told, Occam's razor ain't about the truth is it? It's got more to do with how sleek and easy to use a theory/hypothesis is - the idea being to avoid clunky hypotheses/theories. Put simply, Occam's razor is more about convenience and aesthetics (to a certain degree) than the truth and H. L. Mencken is referring to the latter. As you said a few days ago, "my two bitcoins worth." I quote you too. :grin:
This has now been included in my quotation collection :up: Thanks a megaton!
Tmf!
Sure. Hence my view:
Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.
But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd.
I think we need to be as cautious as we should be open-minded about this.
Cautious because beliefs - theism included - have consequences that permeate all aspects of life and living.
Open-minded because we neither can, nor can afford to, disregard the possibility of a creator-deity. That said, what we discover might not match up to our expectations and that would be liking killing a dragon to save a princess only to find out you don't like the princess at all (the game's not worth the candle).
Sure Tmf!
Feel free to embellish in that reasoning. Thanks for your thoughts!
By the way, a case can be made that if god doesn't exist, intelligence and even consciousness has to be/could be an illusion. After all, if pure random chance can produce wonders (universe, life) that some sections of the population believe could only have been the handiwork of a conscious intelligence (god) - the two can't be told apart - it follows, right?, that conscious intelligence and unconscious non-intelligence are indistinguishable and Leibniz claimed the identity of indiscernibles. :smile: So, is consciousness an illusion? Daniel Dennett should take a look at this argument.
Maybe. But are they predictable? And what does that have to do with the OP?
Regarding Non-linear Dynamic Systems, neuroscientist Terrence Deacon discusses the spooky phenomenon of "Strange Attractors" in chaotic systems. Those so-called "attractors" cause somewhat deterministic behaviors, but there is nothing there to cause the attraction. Deacon calls this "the power of absence". I interpret this natural feature in terms of evolution, which similarly seems to be drawn toward a future state that does not yet exist. As Deacon notes, most scientists are oblivious to the teleological signs in nature, probably because they prefer to think that the evolutionary system is doing a random walk instead of a purposeful deterministic march. :cool:
Strange Attractor :
In Chaos Theory and Dynamic Systems, a Strange Attractor is a mathematical value, or point in space, that seems to pull the elements of the system into warped orbits, like planets around the sun. What’s strange about these mathematical “objects” is that there is no mass at the center of orbit except a numerical value. Its “pull” is statistical instead of gravitational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor
Power of Absence :
"A causal role for absence seems to be absent from the natural sciences.”
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html
Jacques Monod : "The central problem of biology is how could purposeful systems have emerged from a universe with no purpose?"
Quoting 180 Proof
Maybe. But you just hit one into the net. :joke:
That's exactly why Pantheists and PanEnDeists equate G*D with Nature. As Spinoza concluded, "god sive nature" : god or nature, same thing -- no distinction. The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe. Multiverse enthusiasts assume the latter, but they have no empirical evidence to support their faith in eternal Nature. :smile:
The Big Bang doesn't seem to be an issue since god is seen as somewhat of a supreme creator and if the universe is self-created, as it is in an atheist's mind, god, again, equates with the universe. God creates the universe, the universe creates itself; ergo God = the universe. What do you think?
Sounds like Atheist = God. :joke:
I think that the crux of the Creation question is that ultimately something must have been self-created in order for anything to exist in a physical form. For Spinoza, that ultimate "something" was "god sive nature", and he thought that Nature was eternal. But, of course, that was long before the Big Bang theory put a damper on that notion. :smile:
That's it! Theists and atheists have been fighting for nothing. Reminds of the situation where two people are talking about the same person but they think they're talking about two different persons. This happens, right?
Yes. One who does not believe in his own existence. :lol:
However, had not the Big Bang resulted in precisely the balance of atomic forces that eventuated then there would be no matter, therefore no universe. A fraction of a percentage difference in the six fundamental constants would have resulted either an immediate collapse, or in plasma and so on.
Quoting jorndoe
Which is a judgement.
All that given, my two bobs worth is simply that it's unfeasible to claim that life arose because of chance, or just happened to form. But that doesn't necessarily imply the apparent opposite, that it was the result an intentional act or cause, either. It might be that neither intention nor chance are meaningful concepts at the cosmic level. Nevertheless, I will say that I'm sceptical about atheist attempts to argue, a la Jacques Monod and others, of life being a fluke occurence or random happening. And why? Because the causal chain that is necessary for the formation of matter, planets and living organisms goes right back to the initial singularity, and science can't see beyond that.
The universe is fine-tuned to what it is? That doesn't really say much.
By the way, evaluating all possible universes with a sample size of one isn't the easiest task. (Heck, some claim that Heaven and Hell are possible.) How would we go about that?
Quoting Wayfarer
I'd say observation.
Quoting Wayfarer
Is that "Omega Point" Tipler? *cough* Don't recall the title, but two guys authored a book not long ago, arguing opposite points. One of them at least an accredited physicist (maybe both). I can try to look it up. Might be better.
Edit: one of the two authors was Luke Barnes.
Wayfarer!
Happy Monday. If you will, any sort of synopsis or initial thoughts about that book you just bought thus far?
I was curious to see if you had any comments on my previous supposition here:
Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.
But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd.
Also, I forgot to add:
Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relate to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter, etc..
Science is deeply involved in such issues but any meaning-of-life questions are deferred or subordinated to the philosopher... .
However, we can say that: ...."quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which the observer and [the] observed are interwoven"- Paul Davies.
Interesting TMF! Thank you.
Randomness is not chaos. Metaphorically, one could think of randomness as say Wheeler's Cloud. Or, variations of the cosmic computer brain... . Our volitional existence, which in part is metaphysical, chooses from that which is available to us from our sense experience, intuition, and other Kantian types of apperception and reasoning... .
Can you elaborate on your notion of..." can't be told apart"?
Daniel Dennett admittingly didn't explain consciousness. He brought up some good metaphysical points though (Qualia, etc..) With respect to things-in-themselves as being illusionary, there are many things in life and nature that possess those kinds of qualities. Time, in and of itself, is certainly one of them.
Of course it is. Because the principle was observed from the perspective of humans. Everything people do is anthropocentric. What else would you expect : simian-centric? theo-centric? Science is supposed to aim for purely objective and unbiased observations and conclusions : the "view from nowhere". But, pure objectivity would be God's point of view from outside the universe, and outside the human body. Moreover, the term itself was coined and used by scientists, until its implications of divine design raised furious criticism. :smile:
Origin of Anthropic Principle :
The phrase "anthropic principle" first appeared in Brandon Carter's contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
In 1952 British astronomer Fred Hoyle first used anthropic reasoning to make a successful prediction about the structure of the carbon nucleus.
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle
A discussion in another thread with 180 Proof revolved around mind and intelligence. 180 Proof said something to the effect that evolution is intelligent in that it suggests an optimum strategy given the volatile situation of the enviroment. Nonetheless, he refused to accept the involvement of a mind behind evolution citing AI as instances of intelligence sans minds.
My response was to present a a gedanken experiment using the Turing test. Suppose you're interacting (say playing chess) with something that's hidden from view by a curtain. You examine the moves and come to the conclusion that your opponent is intelligent. Based on this piece of information (the entity behind the curtain is intelligent) alone can you infer whether your opponent has a mind (a human player) or doesn't have a mind (AI)? The answer is a big NO!. Why? Both humans (having minds) and AI (having no minds) possess intelligence and so you won't be able to tell which is which. Mind - No mind equivalency.
The same argument works for evolution which bears all the marks of intelligence and so, based on this single data point, one won't be able to infer whether evolution is the product of a mind or is like AI, mindless. Hence, with nothing to go on but signs of intelligence, evolution with a mind at the helm and evolution with no such thing "...can't be told apart..."
It appears 180 could not square the Structuralist circle by considering abstract sentient Being, in his theory. Big mistake. In other words, not comprehensive enough... . (Ironically enough, he tends to get overly defensive/emotional about his views there. He's very sensitive about justification of his atheism.)
Quoting TheMadFool
Unless I'm misinterpreting the analogy, generally speaking Turing machine algorithms (patterns) have a lower complexity (see OP) versus that of higher complexity. In theory, while biological systems can emerge from very long, complicated chain of events and evolutionary processes, we still have a very large leap from not only explaining why the laws of physics has no evolutionary competition, but to explaining how consciousness emerges from matter.
Quoting TheMadFool
Wouldn't self-awareness itself, be able to poke holes in the analogy? In other words, you would have to ask the AI thing-in-itself to prove it lives inside of a computer simulation. We then, are seemingly no better off in determining the reality of its existence, right?
Quoting Gnomon
... is better (e.g. relativity).
Anyway, biased or not, we can still say things about the world we're in.
The anthropic principle has anthropo-bias inherently. Or by design. ;)
You say that like being human is a bad thing. Are you a misanthrope?
I'm kidding. I know what you mean. But, just as rational thinking doesn't come easily to humans, cognitive biases seem to be inherent, even in those who aspire to objectivity. So, I tend to give pathetic humans a little slack. Besides, as I noted before, the term "Anthropic Principle" was created -- "by design" -- by objective scientists, to explain the parallels they saw between abstract laws of physics & initial conditions of evolution, and computer programs that are designed to reach a specific species of final output. :smile:
Misanthropy is the general hatred, dislike, distrust or contempt of the human species,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy
Cognitive biases are inherent in the way we think, and many of them are unconscious.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-identify-cognitive-bias
He comes off as a person of great erudition. It's great to have him in the forum. I hope to keep learning from him...and others too.
Quoting 3017amen
I've always maintained that the jump from chimpanzees to humans, two species that share 95% of their DNA some say, is one far greater in magnitude than the the jump from inanimate matter to life. It's as if creating life, the simplest cells like bacteria, is child's play compared to creating human-level consciousness.
Quoting 3017amen
I did think about that. There seems to be an unfounded assumption in thinking that AI isn't conscious because, as we all know, by that token even human consciousness is uncertain insofar as other minds are the issue. We infer consciousness in other people - other minds - not by some kind of direct access to their consciousness (impossible as of the moment) but through how they behave and of the the cues we keep an eye out for is intelligence. In other words, a big clue, at least we think it is, that indicates the presence of consciousness (minds) is intelligence. Compare this with the intelligence AI demonstrate by beating us at our own game as it were. Shouldn't we extend AI the same courtesy and deem them as conscious too? :chin:
Quoting TheMadFool
The key phrase is "comes off". Unfortunately, there are other's including myself who would beg to differ. Physics explanations/analogies aren't necessarily in his wheelhouse.
Quoting TheMadFool
But the problem I see ( you tell me otherwise) with the logic or analogy is that if the inference was AI to another AI life form (if the two were reasoning with each other), then you would have two man-made robots making logical inferences with each other. In that scenario I don't see how you can compare man-made robots to biological complexity, especially something from nothing (the big bang, etc.), much less than the fact that someone had to create the AI Robot to begin with, right?
In a similar way, I personally don't have a problem with Multiverse theories because in part what's driving some theories is the idea of "Anthropic Selection" regardless. Hence:
...the theory proposes that all possible physical conditions are represented somewhere among the ensemble, and the reason why our own particular universe looks designed is that only in those universes which have that seemingly contrived form will life (consciousness) be able to arise. Hence it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe so propitiously suited to biological requirements. It has been "anthropically selected". -- Paul Davies
Sounds like to me there is also some sort of logical necessity working here... ?
Jorndoe!
Thanks for your thoughts. I checked out the links. It looks like those arguments are more religious in nature v. say, a cosmological God/first cause. For instance, it talks about Omni-3 stuff which is a theological interpretation about the mind of a God, you know, apologetics stuff. It sort of begs other questions though about certain kinds of things that seem subjectively true, and what kinds of things are objectively true.
Similarly, in relation to questions about evolutionary theories and such, unlike Darwinist theories, I think 'objectively' we know that the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life have no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity enough to allow for consciousness, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is indeed far from absurd.
That also begs other questions relative to whether mathematics itself is invented or has some objective/independent existence, only to be discovered from time to time. Those universal laws that seem so 'unreasonably effective' infer some sort of abstract metaphysical existence. You know, kind of like consciousness itself... .
Some argue that creation, existence, and all of life is just an illusion. Take the phenomenon/paradox of Time for example... .
There are many things in life that are seemingly beyond reason. But once again, so is the explanation of your consciousness/itself (consciousness violating rules of bivalence, non-contradiction, etc.). Quite a mystery indeed :joke:
Yeah. That's a wrap for Gnome.
Not sure I understand your question. But, consider the conscious, subconscious and unconscious mind working together. If one were to describe that phenomenon of cognition, you wouldn't be able to describe it logically. For instance, driving a car while daydreaming, then crashing and killing yourself. Or driving while thinking about a math equation, and so on.
The mind is not only capable of doing two things at once, but your mind can also trick your self-awareness into thinking you're on a beach while driving, hence crashing and dying. The proposition that describes the phenomenon would violate many rules of bivalence/non-contradiction/excluded middle because we don't know which element of consciousness was driving the car.
Think of it as varying degrees of truth value, or two truth values at the same time, like fuzzy logic. I was aware and unaware that I was driving my car. (Or I was driving and not driving at the same time-your consciousness is 'logically impossible'.)
What if self consciousness starts with memories? Recognition of the self comes from analyzing remembered events and assigning cause and effect. Sometimes the self is a cause and sometimes it's affected. Either way it's always central in the narrative.
Maybe at first all the things we put under the umbrella of consciousness are identified as parts of the environment. The storm is angry. The river loves me. The lion hates me. I kill the lion.
I've been pondering why it is that math stalled in development until the invention of abstract money. Maybe abstractions were there, but not entirely fleshed out the way we experience them.
Hey Frank!
Thanks for your contribution. Long time no talk, I hope all is well with you and yours!
I think that's a great question. It reminds me of the perception differences between the Will itself (the metaphysical part of consciousness), and life experiences, which, are essentially still all part of cause and effect.
Meaning, I perceive I'm self-aware in a different way as I age. It seems that on a gradient scale, one's basic Will to live/survive is more predominant in earlier years than say in later years because we have no memories to reflect upon. Then as we age, our Will seems to be less involved in Being because we've collected memories to either be happy or sad about. So if for example we wanted to kill ourselves, we would presumably do it because our collection of memories are bad versus good. The bad outweighed the good. And in that case, our intellect overpowered our Will; our Will was subordinated by our intellect. Our intellect said life is not worth living.
Quoting frank
Can you share some examples of that Frank?
BTW- relative to causation, what are your thoughts:
1. Darwinism=Bottom-up reasoning
2. Emergence= Top-down reasoning
Anyway, thanks again for poking your head in on the discussion...you have plenty of philosophy to offer!!!
So this would be my question: say your experiences are like texts. Do you read them while they're being laid down to paper? Or do you act unconsciously and read them later?
Remembering backward, but living forward, as SK said. Does that have any bearing?
Quoting 3017amen
Of mathematics following money? Abstract money was invented in Lydia. Our numbering system comes from India. It replaced the Roman numerals for issues of trade, calculating interest, that sort of thing.
Money became even more abstract with the development of banking. Now we have virtual value.
Math piggybacked all of this.
Quoting 3017amen
I know what you're asking, but I have to think about it
.Quoting 3017amen
Thanks! Cool thread.
Extraordinary questions, I mean that! It speaks to part of the "value system" model from the OP. As such, I am going to monder this ( a monder is a cross between a mull and a ponder LOL), but want to plant a seed in the meantime:
Okay, let's consider SK's famous quote: “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards,” What are some implications? Well, in thinking about top-down versus bottom-up reasoning, it made me thing about how intellectual life (one's value system) is thought about. Let's use a simple example of one who loses their job or their lover or gets a promotion, or any event in time, etc... .
With respect to cause and effect and how it relates to your questions, the vast majority of time we can only understand why these things happen by reflecting on the past. We use intellect and reason to determine why things happened the way they did, or do. We unconsciously move forward in everydayness knowing about these experiences and experience the resulting feelings from them. Sometimes we are self-aware and other times we are not. But we are guided nonetheless by our Will and intellect to move forward with living life. In short, I would say we do both. But I think there is much more to parse there... .
My question relates to how that cognition works with philosophical theories about how we got here. Is that foregoing an example of top-down reasoning or bottom-up reasoning, I wonder.
Even so, a reader might ask themselves, in that little scenario, what Darwinian survival advantages do those kinds of value systems have on humans? Are they too, some kind of abstract value system in themselves? Objectively, why should we care, when survival instinct, and the basic needs of food clothing and shelter have already been met?
Quoting Banno
You don't agree with my inference that the "Big Bang" put an end to the eternal universe assumption, and re-opened the question of First Cause??? I'm crushed! Guess it's time for "Gnome" to slink away from the slanted "light of reason". . . . . Or not. :groan:
Ironically, the sarcastic nickname came from Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who had presumed that Nature existed forever, or at least was in a steady state. Other astronomers, seeing the implications for an instantaneous divine creation event, began to imagine other explanations for the sudden appearance of our material universe (along with space & time & laws of nature) that avoided the logical inference of a law-maker. The most common alternative scenario is some variation on the never-ending Multiverse or the sci-fi Many Worlds conjectures. Moreover, the Inflationary Model, in which the whole universe popped into existence in a fraction of a second, sounds more like a miracle than even the biblical creation in seven days.
After many years of myth-making, they still have no physical evidence to support their hypothetical models, taking for granted that the laws of Nature, and their embodiment in matter are eternal -- hence no need for a Lawgiver. So, those imaginative alternatives are not yet empirical facts. In fact, you could call The Multiverse a materialist's creation myth, starring magic Matter. Fortunately, philosophers are not bound to a belief in an infinite & unbounded universe, So, they are able to see the logic behind Aristotle's necessary First & Final Cause axiom for the chain of causation.
So, the gnarly gnome will continue to explore all plausible answers to those open questions. Re-opened by the calculations of a finite beginning, as revealed by hard-nosed empirical scientists, following the astronomical evidence where it led : to a singular point (a question mark) at the beginning of Time. :nerd:
Albert Einstein, in his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, dedicates a chapter to this idea, as its title suggests: The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. In the words of us laypeople, Einstein – among others – suggests a “spherical” universe, one in which we can venture out in a straight line, and circumnavigate back to our starting position. But how is such a cosmos possible, let alone fathomable?
https://futurism.com/finite-yet-unbounded
Note -- That sounds like circular reasoning, in which you end-up right back where you started.
The Aristotelian universe was a finite bounded sphere. But it was also eternal---unbounded in time.
http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jeffery/astro/aristotle/aristotle_hoplite_spear.html
You are, it seems, attempting to apply Aristotelian logic in a place where it cannot be applied. The appropriate language is not Aristotle's, but Hawking's. Right or wrong, what the Hawking article does is to demonstrate that the Aristotelian notion of causation does not apply at the cosmological level.
Is that a fact -- or an opinion? :wink:
Is that all you got?
Like a circling eddy in a stream, yea.
Quoting 3017amen
One idea would be that just as I reflect on events and my self is generated by that reflection, the tribe's living self is generated by saying how we got here?
Sure. Like James' notion of our stream of consciousness. Which begs yet another question, if this energy cause, results in this cognitive behavior, does the law(s) of energy apply here? Meaning, if energy can neither be created or destroyed, what happens to conscious energy, I wonder. Or maybe it's not germane because it's (consciousness) not exclusively material(?).
Quoting frank
Could you elaborate a bit on that one Frank? Is that like Wheeler's PAP?
In the alternative, what I was thinking is that in our way of making sense about cause and effect (from what we just talked about in reflecting on our past experiences-SK quote) is that considered top-down (or bottom-up) thinking... , what other kinds of thinking uncovers cause and effect and how we got here?
Anthropism/Anthropocentrism may mean the design of the carbon-based cell somehow came before or was created by the order of nature, in the exquisite fitness of the laws of nature themselves, for all life on Earth:
Nowhere is this fitness more apparent than in the properties of the key atomic constituents of the cell. Each of the atoms of life—including carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, as well as several metal elements—features a suite of unique properties fine-tuned to serve highly specific, indispensable roles in the cell. Moreover, some of these properties are specifically fit for essential roles in the cells of advanced aerobic organisms like ourselves.
Dr O'Dowd from Space Time says that's probably not true, conservation of energy that is.
It's a helpful idea for some kinds of analysis, but it's not true in the absolute sense.
O'Dowd also cautions against thinking of energy as a thing in its own right. I need to watch that one again.
Quoting 3017amen
Gotta monder it for a while.