Simplicity-Complexity
[quote=Charles Darwin]“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”[/quote]
What I want to focus on is what I perceive is a claim that complexity evolves from simplicity. I think this idea is one that is universally accepted. It also seems to agree with science - the big bang 13.8 billion years ago was just a soup of the most elementary particles and now stars, galaxies and life even if it's just confined to earth.
If this idea that simplicity evolves into complexity is true then what explains the quite obvious fact that humans when engaged in creative acts can never produce something more complex than humans themselves? All our inventions no matter how advanced are but cheap imitations of nature.
How do we explain the hard-problem of consciousness or our inability to create artificial intelligence and usher in the technological singularity?
Granted that I may be speaking too soon and we may be able to create something more complex than ourselves in the future but as of the moment our inability to do so contradicts the simplicity evolves into complexity hypothesis.
What I want to focus on is what I perceive is a claim that complexity evolves from simplicity. I think this idea is one that is universally accepted. It also seems to agree with science - the big bang 13.8 billion years ago was just a soup of the most elementary particles and now stars, galaxies and life even if it's just confined to earth.
If this idea that simplicity evolves into complexity is true then what explains the quite obvious fact that humans when engaged in creative acts can never produce something more complex than humans themselves? All our inventions no matter how advanced are but cheap imitations of nature.
How do we explain the hard-problem of consciousness or our inability to create artificial intelligence and usher in the technological singularity?
Granted that I may be speaking too soon and we may be able to create something more complex than ourselves in the future but as of the moment our inability to do so contradicts the simplicity evolves into complexity hypothesis.
Comments (192)
In the physical world, you can have simple objects of which their simple, disconnected state is much more probable than when they collectively form a more improbable, complex object. This is possible because such complex object is a game-theoretical equilibrium that is surprisingly stable, no matter how improbable.
For example, the reason why an electron prefers to orbit around the nucleus of an atom is ultimately because the electron's internal structure becomes itself more stable by doing that. The electron itself will less easily fall apart into smaller constituents, if it is itself part of that larger whole (the atom).
In fact, this hypothesis could probably even be tested scientifically. It should be easier to (cost substantially less energy) to smash a free electron apart than one that is orbiting around an atom. The same should be true for a proton or neutron. A free particle should be easier to smash apart than one that is embedded inside the nucleus of an atom.
Quoting TheMadFool
If you compare two ideas, then one could be better than the other one. In this context, we could define the term "better idea" as an idea that will live longer. Combining ideas into larger ones, however, does not necessarily create a game-theoretical equilibrium between them. For that to happen, each idea of a combination of two ideas should be able to survive longer, exactly because it is combined with the other one.
Why would this be the case?
For example, the nine axioms of Peano standard arithmetic theory are a combination of nine ideas. Would you improve the strength of arithmetic theory by adding new axioms? Not necessarily, because it will be possible to produce most candidate axioms as theorems of the nine existing ones. So, they would mostly be redundant. Without claiming that it will be impossible to do, it is hard to find an additional axiom that is truly independent from the existing ones, and that would meaningfully extend number theory. Another problem is that adding a new axiom would make you trust more, while increasing the amount of trust is not necessarily a good idea. Furthermore, number theory will never really die. It is not a living thing anyway.
There are more around 37.2 trillion cells in the human body. Perhaps we just don’t have the time.
But that's not true.
If human minds have X complexity, and things of greater complexity tend to emerge from things of lesser complexity, then it actually does follow (inductively) that human minds can make things more complex than themselves.
Quoting TheMadFool
One explanation is that it emerges from the complex system/neural networks that our bodies initiate. A second possibility is that we're self-deluded P-zombies...
Quoting TheMadFool
The technological singularity is not coherent for a number of reasons (exponentially growing processing and memory requirements, for example)... Intelligence is the ability to anticipate something, and to anticipate requires observations + calculations. The more confident you want your anticipations to be, exponentially more observations and calculations are required to achieve a linear increase in intelligence. The *process* of the singularity makes sense, but it's a practical impossibility because we almost instantly hit the physical limits of any apparatus we construct. (a true techno singularity must therefore be self-assembling, and the rate of self-assembly must constantly accelerate).
Quoting TheMadFool
"Simplicity" is not an ingredient of complexity. Dynamism, however, is. In systems with very many "simple" fundamental elements, and where the fundamental elements are highly dynamic (can interact with other fundamental parts in numerous ways), emergence tends to happen.
Humans in human society is a good example. One human living alone in the forest is not complex at all compared to a multi-cultural and inter-continental civilization. Humans par nature basically just wander around in forests or plains like the hominid ancestors we evolved from. But give humans enough time and enough behavioral dynamism (and a critical mass), and we figure out how to reach novel tiers of existence (tiers whose complexity did not emerge from biology alone, but from serendipity, interactions, observations, discoveries, communication, time, and space).
In a nut shell, time and space is a serendipity generator (a generator of complexity/patterns/structure, where self-stable *lasting* "complex" phenomenon accumulate overtime and eventually form the ground floor (the basic system) for a new scale of emergent phenomenon), but like diamonds, greater magnitude in the product confers exponentially rising cost (in time, space, and energy).
So the answer to your main point is that we simply cannot afford it. Biology is too cheap and efficient to be contended with in terms of raw complicatedness. That said, groups of humans are the basis for *things that emerge from humans* (emergent phenomenon are wholes by definition, and the human collective is probably the next scale in which we should expect to see highly complex emergence), and human civilization as a whole is debatably more complex than even our own biology.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So, it's about energy expense vs return vis-a-vis efficiency. Nature, and we're part of it, is the most efficient system in existence and we simply can't match up no matter how creative we get.
I learned in biology class how living systems have in-built redundancies which take the form of multiple pathways in biochemistry that work as a fail-safe in case one chemical pathway should be obstructed, allowing life to continue. Also the fact that all life, from viruses to blue whales, is based on the four bases of DNA suggests an almost unimaginable efficiency in the system.
Quoting alcontali
Reminded me of the oft bandied about but usually misunderstood (count me in) concept of entropy. I guess the difference between a closed and an open system explains the complexity, especially life, we see on earth.
Quoting NOS4A2
Agreed. Everything takes time. That's why I admitted that I may be speaking too soon.
Quoting Banno
How? Can you name one man-made object that is more complex than humans?
:up:
TO ALL
How would one go about defining the terms "simplicity" and "complexity"?
The usual interpretation of the difference between simplicity and complexity seems to be pinned down numerically or structurally or relationally. Fewer components in a system makes the system simple. Structurally, the parts are said to be simpler than the whole. The fewer the relationships between the parts the simpler the system is.
A complex system would have many components/parts and the relations between them would also be greater in number.
I guess I have a very basic conception of the words "simplicity" and "complexity"
New York City? Civilization? Liverpool FC? Surely anything that is made up of humans is more complex than just humans?
I get that you still have an argument, but I think you will need to provide context for words like "simple" and "complex". What is more complex, a cell or a mountain?...why? What is more complex, a human or the large hadron collider?...again, why?
Quoting TheMadFool
This partially suggests that bigger is automatically more complex, so my large hadron collider example should suffice. There are far more connections between far more atoms. Although an ant would seem more complex than a large block of aluminum, so this suggests a different type of complex. Is the number of different components/parts more important to complexity or is it the total number of connections?
I do not view anything I have said as a "haha, gotcha!". It is really just pointing out some confusion on my part as to what exactly you are suggesting with "complex"??
Quoting TheMadFool
I thought I did too :grimace: But as you can tell from my response above, after your OP, the definition of complex suddenly became insufficient (for me).
Even assuming that I cannot name one man-made object that is more complex than humans, you could only achieve have not produce something more complex than humans themselves, not your desired can never produce something more complex than humans themselves.
Your argument fails.
I was thinking more Mandelbrot set. But yes, society counts as being man-made and more complex than any individual.
Agreed but I did mention that limitation to my thesis. The future is open-ended as far as I can see. What bears mentioning though is the way people have sorted problems in science and philosophy. Why is consciousness called a "hard" problem and why is there no genuine AI? Why is an explanation for turbulence or the theory of everything so difficult? These should be, if complexity follows naturally from simplicity, easy. Right?
Do you consider deleting features from my understanding of complexity and simplicity or adding other features you think are necessary?
Have a go.
Entropy is also at work. Its effect is to gradually dismantle complex systems, i.e. erode them into simpler ones. Entropy is, however, a weak phenomenon, compared to the stubborn resilience of a game-theoretical equilibrium between constituent parts of an object (dead or living).
Furthermore, the universe keeps expanding. The mainstream view is that all matter-energy that exists today was originally contained in the initial singularity. I do not believe in that view, simply because we cannot detect similar dense concentrations of matter-energy anywhere in the universe today. That kind of density of matter-energy is most likely even impossible. For example, if you try to concentrate all matter-energy of just our solar system or just our galaxy inside the volume of a tennis ball, it would not work. Therefore, I believe that matter-energy is somehow a byproduct of the expansion of the universe, and that it did not even exist in the initial singularity. This matter-generation process would then also work in the opposite direction of entropy. In my opinion, the standard Lambda-CDM cosmological model has lots of implications that cannot possibly be true and that are clearly bullshit. I don't have an alternative for it, but I don't believe it either.
The problem is this:
1. People believe that simplicity evolves into complexity
2. Humans can't create anything more complex than themselves
If 1 is true then 2 should be false.
The problem is compounded by the fact that intelligence should lead to greater complexity by way of knowledge. There's a difference between an amateur philosopher and a trained philosopher as an example. Yet this is obviously false in man-made creations which, as I said, are poor imitations of nature.
If you don't want to answer that then can you kindly try and provide a proof for the belief that simplicity leads to complexity or vice versa or perhaps you want to do something else.
That is a legitimate belief. For example, a game-theoretical equilibrium is more complex than its constituent parts. That alone explains much of why simplicity evolves into complexity.
Quoting TheMadFool
Human societies are conceivably more complex than individual humans.
Quoting TheMadFool
It depends on whether a group of person is more complex than a person.
Quoting TheMadFool
A trained philosopher is someone who is an expert reader of real philosophers, most of whom were not trained at expert reading other philosophers. Trained philosophers are like literary critics, who never write a book by themselves, while authors who do, are rarely or never interested in criticizing work by other authors. It is not possible to train someone into developing talent. Hence, the old adage: The ones who can, do. The ones who cannot do, teach. The ones who cannot teach, administer and become bureaucrats.
So, no. Someone who trains at executing procedures, such as reading other people's philosophies, has no real talent. Otherwise, he would just use his own talent instead.
Quoting TheMadFool
Proof only exists in mathematics, i.e. in the axiomatic epistemic domain. It is not possible to prove even one single theorem about the real, physical world. That would require access to the theory of which all provable claims are true in the physical universe, i.e. the Theory of Everything (ToE). We do not have that access. Hence, the answer is that there is no proof possible that simplicity leads to complexity in the physical universe.
Am I then to conclude that the belief simplicity leads to complexity is baseless and ergo, logically, to be open to discussion?
If yes could you write some more of your thoughts on it.
Also I think equlibrium has nothing to do with the issue of simplicity and complexity. Yes equilibrium may describe a relationship between systems but it, as a concept, doesn't form part of the definition of simplicity or complexity.
It is not provable from a mathematical theory, but it may very well be true. Statements that are not provable are not necessarily baseless. That would mean that everything we ever say about the real, physical world would be baseless, because there is nothing you can prove about it.
The empirical epistemic domain, including science, does not require proof. It necessarily accepts substantially lowered standards of evidence.
Furthermore, even within mathematics, there are statements that are true in one model (and false in another) but not provable. Only statements that are true in all its models could ever be provable from the mathematical theory.
Quoting TheMadFool
In game theory it does. The equilibrium between individual players (=subthings) is a new thing. So, when two protons, a neutron, and two electrons form an equilibrium, you get an atom, which is a new thing. It is not just the composition of its subatomic constituents. An atom has substantially different emergent properties from its constituent parts. Iron has electrons in its equilibrium and gold has them too, but iron and gold are noticeably different things.
Quoting TheMadFool
For example, a water molecule, H20, consists of three atoms, i.e. two times H(ydrogen) and one time O(xygen). H20 is substantially more complex than its constituent atoms. When these water molecules get absorbed in your body, they form even more complex biochemical cocktails, which are essentially also equilibria. These cocktails are noticeably different and more complex than pure water. Composition layer after composition layer, you obtain increasingly more complex compositions that are noticeably different from their constituent parts.
Essential features of complexity : numerically greater in parts and part-to-part relationships
Consider a system consisting of 3 parts a, b and c and that it is possible for all possible permutations to occur between a, b and c.
We have in the beginning, with the artificial constraint that only permutations of 3 are possible, 3 × 3 × 3 = 27 possibilities.
Each of these 27 possibilities then have further possible combinations which we can assume to be again in threes. We now have 27 × 27 × 27 = 19683 permutations possible.
The above calculation ignores more complex relationships that could be possible.
Therefore, simplicity evolves into complexity. What do you think of my "proof"?
Yes, but most of these permutations are useless for these parts.
According to game theory, these parts will only pick those possibilities that substantially improve their own stability.
So, you will end up noticing large numbers of parts picking permutation 5897 (for example). In terms of probability, this option is very unlikely (only 1 chance out of 19683), but it happens to be a combination in which the internal stability of each of the three parts improves dramatically.
Part A is way less likely to fall apart in that option, but also part B and part C. So, none of these parts wants to leave this permutation for another one. Hence, this permutation turns out to be improbably stable.
So, layer after layer, these increasingly unlikely compositions become more and more stable, and that is exactly the opposite of what you would expect.
Agreed. Some permutations may be dead ends e.g. inert elements like Xenon etc.
Quoting alcontali
Agreed. There must be a guiding principle to interactions e.g. celestial objects tend to be spherical.
However equilibrium if it has anything to do with stability of possible permutations then it only determines/limits possibilities. Wouldn't that be against complexity by preventing all possible relationships?
All states are actually, equally probable.
Therefore, you see the elements in all other states too, but because they have no interest in staying in these normal states, they regularly keep changing state.
At some point, however, an element will randomly/accidentally enter the very stable state, which happens to be a game-theoretical equilibrium. The element no longer want to leave. It no longer want to change its state, because its own, internal stability benefits handsomely from being in this particular state.
The other items -- which can be other types of elements -- that constitute the equilibrium happen to react in the same way: they do not want to leave, for the same reason. It is the entire collection of items in the equilibrium that is now very stable. This collection of sub-things thereby forms a new thing.
Complexity grows because a thing (=the equilibrium) consists of multiple sub-things. This composition strategy of sub-things into things is able to yield increasingly complex things.
Hypothetically, if simplicity evolves into complexity then humans could produce something more complicated then themselves. Thats what my logic circuits tell me.
I thought I was making it clear that I do not understand your "understanding of complexity and simplicity"?
That is what I was asking you to clarify.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
If you will answer these questions, I think that will clarify for me. If you can't answer them, then you understand my confusion.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Great question.
That we can create a mountain and a hadron collider but not a cell or a human is clear evidence in which category these four items fall.
We can create only things we understand the mechanics of and what is beyond our understanding and therefore can't create is a sign that some stuff are just too complex.
Ah, but I think language is inadequate to describe what you are getting at. We can easily "create" people, right? whether naturally through sexual reproduction or even by combining sexual material in a lab. So you really mean, we cannot create a human "from scratch"...right? But neither can we create most things...how long would it take humans to synthetically create all of the elements heavier than hydrogen in sufficient quantity to build a mountain or the large hadron collider?
I think limits of our knowledge, or "known/unknown" is more accurate than "complex/simple" in the situation you are describing. Too many factors go into "complex" and anything can seem "simple" to someone who thoroughly understands it. E=MC^2 is extremely simple. But truly understanding everything that the equation entails is a different story.
Quoting TheMadFool
I would prefer to focus on the "beyond our understanding" more than "too complex" as I know exactly what the former means, but the latter would usually require clarification/explanation/context.
As a thought experiment...is a black hole very simple or very complex?
I guess I'm using intelligibility/comprehensibility as a good yardstick for discerning the simple from the complex. Do you think that's wrong? If yes, why?
I might think it is wrong (and that is not the only definition/method you have used in this thread). That is part of what I have been trying to tease out. Since you don't like any of my questions, I will answer one to show my confusion:
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Obviously from an intelligibility/comprehensibility perspective it is off the charts complex. However, we can create tiny black holes in labs (that actually exist for fractions of a second). Also, they have just one part (the singularity) making them ultimately simple. But their gravity can potentially allow them to interact with a huge number of things. So if someone said a black hole is simple, they would be right - and if someone said a black hole was complex, they would be right.
Notice that you said "huge number of things". So you agree that being greater in number, which results in an explosion of possible interactions, qualifies as complex.
I think you're equivocating between "black hole" and "black hole interactions".
One thing that is interesting is you used the singularity of a singularity to say a singularity is simple. I guess we need to, like the great Einstein, relativize the concept of simplicity and complexity. A black hole is simple relative to the interactions it can be part of. However, it is more complex than, say, a planet or a sun.
I think you are right. And I get the feeling that every time we use "complex" to describe we are summarizing our equivocations...for example:
Quoting TheMadFool
Overall, I agree that a black hole is "more complex than a planet or sun", but if we just talk about the object (black hole, sun, planet), and NOT its interactions or formation, then isn't the black hole the simplest? (potentially, as we don't really understand them...which is another {whole new category} aspect of complexity)
Quoting TheMadFool
In every way?
When humans create art, they create an expression of reality that is more complex than the materials that constitute the artwork. Michelangelo’s David, for example, has a complexity to it that certainly wasn’t apparent in the stone before he got his hands on it.
Plus, ‘create’ is different from ‘evolve’. I think that humans also evolve into something at least marginally more complex than themselves all the time: other humans.
What do you mean by:
1. Simplicity
2. Complexity
All that I offer are my own personal thoughts on the matter and they inform me that 1 and 2 have to do with the number of interactions under consideration which I vaguely remember has something to do with triangular numbers.
You probably wanted critique that by asking me if one black hole is simple or complex. The answer to this question would depend on which level of phenomena we're discussing. If it's black hole interactions then it surely can't get simpler than one black hole. However, if we're discussing black hole formation, structure, etc. - things that require information of stuff within black holes then it is, evidently, quite complex because now, loosely speaking, the juggler has more balls in the air.
We can create art but art can't create us and I'm quite sure you're not claiming we're simpler than the art we create.
Let me try again. If 1 is true, it does not follow that 2 is false, because creating has nothing to do with evolving. So 3 is false.
Humans don’t need to create something more complex than themselves to demonstrate that simplicity evolves into complexity. Humans themselves have evolved into more complex organisms, and continue to evolve, particularly in relation to their capacity for more complex mental structures.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, of course not. But to create is not to evolve. ‘Create’ is a transitive verb - it’s an action exerted on an object. ‘Evolve’ is an intransitive verb - it is enacted by the subject.
The simplicity from which art has evolved is not the human creator, but the materials used. That which creates is NOT that which evolves.
I am not saying much, haha.
Just that "simplicity" or "complexity" can refer to a variety of factors. So a black hole would have the simplest composition (assuming our understanding of them as a "singularity" is correct - who knows how likely that is), but its immense gravity means that it interacts with far more other things making its interactions very complex.
Maybe definitions will help? This is the first one to pop up on google.
Simplicity:
1.the quality or condition of being easy to understand or do.
2. the quality or condition of being plain or natural.
3. a thing that is plain, natural, or easy to understand.
Notice 2 is quite different from 1. 3 tries to combine 1 & 2, but just ends up highlighting that simplicity could describe a thing that is "plain", or a thing that is "natural", or a thing that is "easy to understand". Notice that any one thing we call "simple" could be any one, or all 3. That is all I have been pointing out. There is nothing "simple" about trying to label things "simple". Similarly, to try and rank things in order from simplest to most complex would be nearly impossible unless we are comparing very similar items (a double decker bus is more complex than a single decker bus, but what is more complex, a piece of paper or a glass of water?).
Agreed but no art is more complex than the artist him/herself. That's what I mean.
Quoting Possibility
There is a difference between creativity and evolution but if one subscribes to Darwin's theory, the former evolved from the latter. We now ask which is a better tool in terms of ability to produce "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful", creativity or what has been termed blind evolution which is self-explanatory?
We have the following to go with:
1. The evident fact of simplicity evolving by what is a random process into complexity
2. Evolved human creativity and intelligence, arguably the dream team in the area of "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful"
So we have a situation which is simply that blind chance
has managed, against all odds, to evolve creative and intelligent humans yet humans endowed with these advantages have failed to produce anything that approaches such complexity.
It's akin to a blind man with zero skills creating a masterpiece while at the same time a man with 20/20 vision, trained in the arts, fails to even produce something that can be considered a poor counterfeit.
Of course there could be other reasons for this state of affairs like time and incomplete knowledge and so this argument is applicable only to the present.
I agree that my definition is incomplete but it does reflect a general view or even intuition on the subject of simplicity and complexity. You listed some lexical definitions and all of them have a common denominator in being expressible/transmissible as information in fewer numbers than things that are considered complex.
Let's take everyday examples to see what people's intuitions are about simplicity and complexity. When we read a novel we see differences in characters that can be expressed in terms of simplicity and complexity. A simple character in a novel is what people call one-dimensional -
having a small inventory of emotions, views, whatnot. These characters are easy to understand.
On the other hand, a complex character will be one with a large repertoire of emotions, views, relationships, etc. Such characters are difficult to understand.
It seems the generally accepted view on simplicity-complexity for a character in a novel can be rephrased in terms of a numerical difference in views, relationships, emotions, etc.
I only extend this general view to the whole of the simplicity-complexity issue.
Ok, I agree with this, but I maintain that your argument as stated doesn’t follow.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think I see where you’re going now. Personally, I’m working towards a third option that incorporates both processes. It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence.
Darwin’s theory, for me, is not a motivating but a limiting process on a more fundamental creative impetus that exists beyond space, time, value or meaning. It only requires a vague awareness of interaction to begin. But it’s language that limits our capacity to approach a shared understanding of this more than anything.
I did not mean to harp on your definition, but more suggest that all definitions would be similarly flawed.
Quoting TheMadFool
Except words like "easy" and "natural". Easy is a relative word. Is it easier to do 1 push-up or 2? Obviously, 1. However, is it easier to do 100 push-ups or write 100 pages? It suddenly depends on the person. What if one push-up equals one page? One push-up equals one letter? Maybe one push-up equals one word? As soon as we are not comparing like for like, words like simple and complex require further qualifiers to be meaningful. And obviously a tiger is "natural", does that make it simpler than a calculator?
Quoting TheMadFool
Notice that here, you are comparing like for like (characters in a story). However, which is more complicated, the character or the setting? Surely there is more to their "complication" than the number of words the author uses to describe them?
I felt the need to remind myself how we got started:
Quoting TheMadFool
I am basically saying that we CANNOT determine whether humans have ever created something more complicated than themselves, because the words "simple" and "complex" are loaded with semantic and cultural baggage that means they almost never mean the exact same thing.
I would tend to believe we can (and have) created things more complicated than ourselves, but it would be very debatable and depend heavily on people's understanding of "simple" and "complex".
For example, society must be more complicated than people as it is made of people (same for a government, a business, a sports team, etc), but I doubt you find that very convincing...?
Just wondering what ‘against all odds’ might mean here. Is there some objective truth to the idea of us being creative and intelligent humans? More than most animals, but more than whatever produced us? If we’ve failed to produce anything ‘that approaches such complexity’ then we're less than what produced us. Are we as complex as we imagine?
Which is easier, evolving creativity or creating evolution?
At present the arrow of truth seems to be pointing toward the former, evolving creativity. The surest evidence I can think of is us - evolved creative beings who have difficulty creating evolution.
So I'm inclined not to believe your statement that:
[quote=Possibility]
It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence[/quote]
All I'm saying is that the simple fact that humans, endowed with intelligence + creativity which you'll agree are advantages when it comes to creating something, haven't managed to create evolution and all this while chemistry, with nothing more than chance, has produced life and humana. Isn't it at least ironic that intelligence can't compete with chance in the creativity department? Of course if we examine the situation carefully, random chance uses a brute force technique that surpasses any intelligence through sheer numbers.
Brute force and numbers. What a combination.
I think you might be limiting your thinking here by looking at it as either/or. We are evolved beings who are most aware of the underlying creative impetus in the universe. The ‘creativity’ I have is simply a capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity, etc.
Evolution, at base, IS this creative impetus. ‘Natural selection’ impacts only on life: those systems that are open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond a vague awareness of that, there and then. But the process is actually more fundamental. It is a limiting process defined by its opposition to this creative impetus in each interaction: by ignorance, isolation and exclusion. At a more fundamental level, this negation defines the periodic table, the planets, etc. But at the level of life, it defines the diversity of that life, setting limitations on what survives.
This what you stated and called as obvious, is actually a false sentence and a false proposition. Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are.
Examples: hydroelectric dams, car factories, space research tools, aviation systems.
Your first and foremost premise is false.
In what way are these, I think, machines, more complex than humans?
Yes.
There's nothing complex about that. But look what came out of it.
Quoting god must be atheist
Examples: hydroelectric dams, car factories, space research tools, aviation systems.[/quote]
They don't look like very good examples to me for obvious reasons.
An interesting point of view to consider creativity as a limitation. In my humble opinion creativity is about stepping beyond limits.
Yes, I know. Computers win at chess games not because they're intelligent but because they can find checkmates through brute force techniques. This raises the question, "Is having the capability to spit out an extremely large number of possibilities not intelligence?"
Are you suggesting that a barrage of possibilities is just brute force?
Yes.
That’s very interesting. I’d agree with that. So where would that leave intelligence? Or do we think, or mistakingly believe, that the outcome of the barrage of possibilities is the result of intelligence? And I’m sure there’s a reason for that given our grasp of things.
Quoting TheMadFool
From this I’m guessing that you mean each evolving stage should be more complex than the last. That the next step makes the previous look simple. But it occurred to me that this could only happen once, simplicity then complexity, then that thing is set in motion. There is no more complexity for us or from us.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Why is this so? In what way is society more complex than humans?
Quoting Brett
Unfortunately, although I'd love to believe it, social entities, despite appearing distinct from the individual, is still structured around the basic body plan of an animal, the head being the most visible of all body-parts in social entities e.g. president, prime minister, king, emperor, etc. If social entities were more complex than humans then we'd see something like consciousness in it - a true complexity.
I think you misunderstand me, here. I agree with you that creativity is the capacity and courage to step beyond limits, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. What I meant here by ‘evolution’ IS the underlying process of creativity - but NOT Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
‘Natural selection’ is an evolutionary theory, but in my view it is not evolution. Rather, it provides a key limiting factor to the diversity of life that evolves from an underlying creative impetus. What has been termed ‘natural selection’ is not actually a process of selection: it is an explanation of how elements of the universe ignore, isolate and exclude each other - and the NEGATIVE impact this has on diversity.
The creative process is often understood as the making of specifically useful products - but creativity is broader and more fundamental than that. It is an interaction with potential, where one increases awareness, connection and collaboration with what can be made. The ‘specifically useful’ factor is a limitation imposed on creativity during the creative process, as is the availability of material, tools, etc.
Quoting Possibility
What do you mean by ‘negative impact’?
Quoting TheMadFool
This is interesting, because I don’t agree that chemistry has done the creating here. This is what I mean by the difference between creating and evolving. Chemistry has evolved, but it didn’t create - not by itself, anyway.
‘Survival’ is what remains when all the others stop living. Negative impact refers to the many ways that they stop living, basically. Some are ignored, isolated or excluded by elements of their environment - including other species, potential mates or social groups. Others ignore, isolate or exclude elements of the environment at their peril.
The only reason Darwin called it ‘selection’ was because the theory developed from an understanding of pigeon breeding - where breeders ‘select’ for certain preferred traits...
That said however I do think survival of the species is a kind of arms race where we have the nukes.
Quoting Possibility
That does suggest a sort of anthropomorphism of the environment, conscious acts carried out by the environment against life forms. But for what reason? Why would the environment act this way?
Much like 5 cm is longer than 3 cm, or 39 years is longer than 21 days, or speed of light is faster than 4 Km/h, you have to have a measure of complexity if you want to say with any certainty, "a human is more complex than a hydroelectric, damn."
Do you have such a measurement device and unit of complexity by which to establish the degree of complexity?
If yes, what is it?
If not, then you can't possibly argue scientifically that one thing is more complex than the other.
Sure you can say that anyone can tell a longer string by laying two strings side-by-side and NOT knowing how long they are. But you can't say that one star is moving faster or slower than the other, or else that one ball of yarn placed next to another ball of fluff is lighter or heavier than the other.
So I insist that you tell us what the unit measurement of complexity is, and how complex humans are in this measurement scale, and how complex are particular societies, football teams, and those damned hydroelectrics.
Our knowledge evolves from the simple to the complex.
Simple is what you believe you understand. Complex is what you still do not understand.
We have more understanding over the properties of light than consciousness.
We have far more control over light than we have over consciousness.
Okay. So I understand water, and I understand light. Which is less complex? Your standard of measurement is "I believe I understand it" and "I don't understand it." This is binary. There is no gradation. There is no metric, other the "complex" and "Not complex". You can't, by this metric, differentiate between complex and complex, and between simple and simple.
So... I don't understand consciousness... I don't understand economics... which is more complex? There is no way of telling by your way of measuring complexity, @ovdtogt.
Would you not consider your ability to direct your own thoughts to be indicative of a high degree of control over consciousness?
Our ability to control our thoughts is vastly inferior to our ability to control light.
Egad! I've never met anyone who could control light with his or her thoughts before. You must be barrels of fun at parties!
There is gradation.
The degree to which you understand how a the engine of a motor vehicle works. That can be from knowing how to drive it to being able to repair it. They are all degrees of knowledge from the simple to the complex.
Egad! Who here has mentioned here controlling light with their thoughts or are you a mind reader?
Since consciousness is doing the external controlling, wouldn't consciousness itself first have to be controlled to do the external controlling?
Yes absolutely. That is what scientists and engineers are able to do. We (mere mortals) just profit off the fruits of their labor.
They are absolutely controlling their thoughts. But that is not easy. That is hard. That is why you have to be pretty clever to become a scientist of engineer. It is all about thought control.
By controlling their thought 'processes' they have discovered how to control light. And now any idiot can control light.
It does not require high degree of thought control to flip a light switch. It does to light a fire outside on a rainy day.
This you said in relation to how complex a system IS.
How complex a given system IS, is a fixed state. It is stagnant, not dynamic.
But you now say that a system can be complex and more complex.
You are reducing your argument to a self-contradiction. According to what you said, a system is both complex, and more complex, at the same time. This is necessarily self-contradictory.
Unless you pull in that you did not say "and in the same respect." Yes, the complexity therefore is different as judged by different people; by one who knows how to operate it, and by another one who knows more, that is, to operate it and to repair it.
But then you find yourself at the original problem of measuring complexity. You did not differentiate between complex and complex; you differentiated between the measuring sticks, between "understanding by person A" and "understanding by person B", which does not have an objective, measurable indication of how complex the measured thing is.
(The same argument stands if you say that it is the one and same person who understands the engine to different degrees over time; first, knowing less, then, knowing more. Here the argument would satisfy "in the same respect" but not "at the same time".)
What I am arguing for is a MEASURING DEVICE that indicates objective differences in measurement, given in numerical values, according to differences in complexity. This device exist neither in reality, nor in conceptual form. Therefore those who state one thing (such as a human) is more or less complex than another thing (suc as a hydroelectric dam, or an economic system), can not make their claim stick, their claim is not solid and it is highly susceptible to subjective judgment.
And that was my original point.
Right, and you pointed out that whole mechanism was the product of prodigious thought effort.
Reverse the argument. If you can't control thought, you can't logically be said to control anything else. It isn't a parallel process, it is linear.
Show me where I stated you can't control your thoughts.
I think I offered a pretty robust explanation of the linear connection between control of thought and control of what is external to thought, plus the a fortiori justification, so I'm going to have to assume you are just quibbling now and aren't really interested in furthering the overall argument. I don't do that.
Yes that is exactly what I said. Yes, our ability to control 'stuff' is very dependent on the complexity of its properties. It is far easier to control light than it is to control how a drug behaves in your body. Our ability to control light was the one of the first achievements of the Enlightenment. It was one of the easiest problems to solve so to speak.
If you can't control your intentions you can't control anything. What is your point? To state you need a certain degree of control over your thought process to achieve anything is like kicking an open door.
Please read the rest of my post. Responding to a small portion can make any response valid, but your response is not valid when you consider my whole post.
My post showed that there is no measuring stick to measure complexity. You ignored most of my post and concluded that you are right. That is only acceptable if we all agree to ignore each other's posts, at least partially, and make conclusions on partially read posts. I don't agree to that.
That was my point. Ergo, a fortiori, the thing over which you exert the highest degree of control is always going to be your own thoughts, or consciousness.
Well perhaps not you or me. Newton, Einstein......Plato, Socrates... yes.
Yeah, potentially, yeah. I do tend to think in terms of "best case scenarios" or logical bottom lines.
I guess we both could be correct in a way. Yes, you do have a point.
And so can be made indistinguishably close to either side of the middle?
The closer you are to the 'middle' the better I suppose.
Not anthropomorphism as such, although I do subscribe to a form of panpsychism, I suppose. They’re not conscious acts as we understand them at all, but each interaction in the universe involves some awareness at a very basic level. So by environment, I mean whatever they interact with. I’m not suggesting culpability here by using words such as ignore, isolate and exclude. I use these terms to illustrate that the process is essentially the same regardless of the level of awareness. These aren’t acts against life forms, they’re acts against the effort required by the underlying creative impetus.
Awareness, connection and collaboration requires energy, effort and change. The alternative is easier. The creative impetus is not really a drive - as a force, it is very weak. The universe, for the most part, is content in its negligible level of awareness. It’s just this tiny percentage we call ‘life’ that took a chance to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond the level of a chemical reaction. Because the impetus was there.
That was just one type of interaction that opened up a new level of awareness - and the majority that reached this point would have gone no further, withdrawing back to non-life as quickly as they emerged. Each subsequent interaction at this level of awareness became a new and varied opportunity to be aware/ignorant, to connect/isolate and collaborate/exclude - and a new call for more energy, effort and change, each taken up by only a very small percentage.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting god must be atheist
If you’d like to give me the unit of measurement behind this statement then we could work from there.
Quoting Possibility
‘That took a chance’ suggests some sort of consciousness. I’m not really convinced by this view of life and evolution. I understand where people are coming from, but I find levels of anthropomorphism present, even though you do not believe that. If you were able to convince me otherwise I’d consider it more. But I understand you’re position.
Okay I lost track of the words. Sorry. What I meant was evolution, based on randomness, beats our creativity despite the latter being at an advantage.
Quoting Possibility
Can you indicate at what stage in time, in relation to the evolution of life, this happened.
Creativity/intelligence existed before evolution began, then at some point the process of evolution began. Is that how you see it?
None of this disputes that society is made up of people...does it? So in a part of society, there is consciousness, that makes that part of society more complicated than all of society? That makes zero logical sense. I think I get your point, but I hope you are seeing that it is the various potential uses of the words "simple" and "complex" that are the source of the problem.
And until we understand it better I will not call consciousness complicated. What if consciousness is simply the touch of god, and nothing else? I get you are trying to make this discussion more scientific than that, but I have explained my hesitation to label things as simple or complex outside of context, and I don't have enough context to label consciousness. Is a dog's consciousness simpler or more complex than a human's? How so?
I see this thread suddenly got busy, so no need to get back to me if you have more exciting posts to respond to :smile:
From what I've seen of your posts you tend to lean towards relativism. Would that be fair?
Essentially, yes. But I need to clarify whether by ‘evolution’ you mean ‘how life evolved’, or ‘Darwin’s theory of natural selection’. Natural selection as proposed by Darwin has no effect on non-life. Evolution, as I understand it, began at the proposed ‘Big Bang’, and is inclusive of natural selection as a key ‘limiting’ factor.
In my view, creativity/intelligence exists regardless of space, time or value - just not in the way we expect it to exist. What I’m referring is not an intelligent being or even AN intelligence. It is the concept of intelligence - the potential to acquire information - understood without reference to space, time or value. This makes it difficult to say ‘first this, then this’, because at the point where intelligence interacts with itself, there is no awareness of time - or space, for that matter. The universe begins at the point where the potential to acquire information is aware of the potential to acquire information...
Albert Einstein once said ‘Creativity is intelligence having fun’...
Quoting Possibility
What do you mean by ‘non-life’?
Non-living elements of the universe - rocks, planets, water, air, etc.
That's precisely my point. Nobody has such a measurement. Therefore it is futile to talk about measure of complexity.
Complexity is not a measurable quantity. Therefore you can't say this is more complex or that is more complex, as there is no standard to measure complexity with.
I really don't know how better to explain this to you.
If you pretend not to understand it, just say so and I shut up, as it is futile for me then to say anything more in this thread.
If you sincerely do not understand it, just say so and I shut up, as it is futile for me then to say anything more in this thread.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting god must be atheist
Then why make this statement?
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Is there any form of consciousness that you would be prepared to accept as less complex than a human’s?
Quoting Possibility
I see ‘evolution’ and Darwinism as the same thing. I know that ‘non- life’ is unable to pass on genes and therefore become part of the process of natural selection. But the fact that the earth, among other planets, was in the ideal position from the sun to begin to propagate life which began the evolution of life forms is part of that whole idea of having the best characteristics to survive and thrive. Nature favours traits or characteristics that are beneficial in a specific environment. It seems to me that was the case with the planet earth.
Edit: though on reflection I see a weakness there about favouring traits that are beneficial, beneficial to what and how?
That’s a common viewpoint. Nagel’s ‘Mind and the Cosmos’ argues, however that Darwin’s natural selection is a flawed perspective. The book has been criticised for its rejection of materialism/naturalism and unwillingness to unequivocally reject creationism, but what I think it does do quite well is open the door for a third option. That third option has to explain both natural selection and the teleological nature of our experience.
Quoting Brett
If that’s the case, then what is the rest of the universe there for?
Quoting Brett
Yes - this weakness is where the argument for Darwin’s natural selection as a complete theory runs into problems, and where our anthropocentric view both of the ecosystem and the value structure of the universe prevents us from obtaining an accurately objective view of reality.
Quoting Possibility
So I’m guessing then that from your perspective everything has a purpose, or at least is part of a whole with meaning.
Quoting Possibility
This is probably true.
That’s not what I’m saying here. If you say that natural selection operates at this level, then why would the rest of the universe that doesn’t support life continue to exist? It is Darwin’s natural selection that assumes a purpose to everything, not me. From my perspective, there is an underlying impetus to everything, but not a defined purpose as such. Everything is part of a whole with meaning, sure - the impetus is towards that meaning, whatever it happens to be.
Creativity is the process of understanding who we are by manifesting a part of who we are with which to interact from alternative perspectives, acquiring new information.
Quoting TheMadFool
So then, bear with me,
1) simplicity does evolve into complexity; humans evolve into more complex humans
2) the creative impetus is behind evolution
3) evolution is not about creating
4) humans don’t create more complex things, they evolve, which is not the same as creating. They’re tools of creation.
5) is creating a simple thing or complex thing?
Quoting Possibility
I don’t think Darwinism assumes a purpose. But I’m happy to use impetus instead of purpose in this conversation.
I assume a purpose in actions required to survive. But a purpose for evolution, no, because it’s dependent on random mutations.
I’m trying to decide if the planet earth is or is not part of evolution. Is that fragment that was part of the Big Bang not like a seed that requires ideal conditions to thrive? Many other planets/seeds came to rest on their orbit in a place that was not congenial to their growth. Of course that may have already happened, they thrived and died. But either way it was all random. Is the earth an example of survival of the fittest?
Humans are tools of creation, but our awareness of the creative impetus enables us to also be conscious participants in creation at various levels. We say that a human cannot create a more complex thing than itself, but creativity isn’t just about one human creating a thing. A human (or any element of the universe) creates only insofar as they are aware of, connected and collaborating with this creative impetus of which they are a part. So when a human creates something, what they’re doing is manifesting a part of their relationship with the rest of creation. Integrating new information gained from interacting with what is manifest enables this relationship to evolve - to become more complex.
A complex thing has many intricate connections or parts. So, for me, creating is a simple process, without which there can be no complexity.
Evolution depends on random mutations: on a gene’s potential for change. But natural selection is dependent on the potential for survival in the manifestation of that change. So which of these is fundamentally necessary to existence: change or survival? This is why I feel the need to distinguish between evolution and natural selection.
Okay, agreed. So we go from simple to complex?
But, natural selection is the brilliant child of evolution?
‘Survival of the fittest’ is a Darwinian notion of purpose, not impetus. It refers to the effect of natural selection in a way that suggests ‘survive and thrive’ as the ideal that everything is aiming towards. But we can’t ALL succeed at this, and we’ve since come to the terrible realisation that our efforts in this respect have been steering us rapidly towards failure.
Evolution seen as the result of an underlying creative impetus, on the other hand, suggests that ‘survival’ is unnecessary, that each ‘failure’ is a useful tool for success, and that the ‘ideal’ can be defined only in hindsight. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration leads to successful evolution. Natural selection defines the process of manifestation along the way - supposed ‘failures’ whose various relationships increase our capacity to ensure success for ALL.
Because the original post or one of the first posts claimed that humans have not created anything more complex than humans themselves.
This was one of the premises of the argument, and I called it false. Now you question why I made this argument; I made it because it threw light upon the fact that the original premise was false, so the entire argument is false.
You guys have been debating something undebatable for several pages of posts.
You can agree with this if and only if you can create a reliable and true measure of complexity. Until then, we can't agree. Arbitrary or quasi-arbitrary declarations as to how complex a thing is are meaningless, and should be disposed of.
We don't have to agree, because you've removed yourself from the conversation.
Whether I removed myself from the converstation or not, the logic I presented stayed here. I am not material or important to the conversation; my ideas are. And my ideas stayed.
My agreement as the agreement of a person, does not matter. My logic and my arguments irrefutably show that YOU ought not to agree as well that we go from simple to complex, if you follow logic and reason.
If you agree that we go from simple to complex, you act unreasonable. I don't think that making unreasonable claims is reasonable behaviour on a philosophy site.
By "you" above I meant general "you" not you particularly or you alone as a person.
Quoting god must be atheist
Of course.
It is sort of absurd, though, to think that a conversation should cease because you disagree.
I reiterate, in case you missed it: my disagreement is immaterial. It is the logic that denies agreement with the notion that we progress from simple to complex. Who, that is, what person, presents the logic that forces the denial of agreement is IMMATERIAL.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting Possibility
Yes.
ovdtogt I barely understand anything you say. You’re too cryptic for me.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think it’s worth considering your OP asking why there no evidence of something more complex than humans created by humans and looking to material evidence for that proof and not finding it. It’s indicative of our whole nature, don’t you think, and possibly our predicaments, that evidence of complexity created by us should be sought in things, that evidence of our intelligence is to be found in things.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I want to achieve two things here:
1 Understand the meaning of simplicity and complexity
2. Understand whether the accepted wisdom that complexity proceeds from simplicity makes sense or not
From this point on SC will mean simplicity-complexity.
You speak of SC taking different forms based on context but the fact is we use SC with the same meaning in all and any context otherwise there would be a different word for each context. If you agree it's this universally applicable meaning of SC that I'm trying to zero in on.
You provided me with some lexical definitions of SC and I don't or can't dispute conventional meanings of this term but there should be a common motif that runs through all of them. What could it be? It appears that, despite my lack of skills in math, I've inadvertently quantified SC by using the the number of constituents and interactions at play in an object to get a sense of how simple or complex it is. I accept that this is probably just half the story or even that this is utter nonsense. If you think I'm wrong or partially correct, kindly be explicit of what needs modification or, if you think my theory is moonshine, give me reasons why.
For point 2, my definition would actually support the theory that simplicity evolves into complexity. We's always have to add to, rather than subtract form, to increase complexity and what results is a numerical increase of constituents and interactions manifesting as increased complexity.
Yet, if the above is true then the addition of intelligence into the mix should enhance, what one could call, the quality of the complexity e.g. constituents and their interactions would be elegant and beautiful. Yet this is not true. In other words I'm endorsing the view that a planned object should be more complex and beautifully so than an unplanned, random object. If you notice this is a common complaint against the proponents of intelligent design - the world having too many imperfections for it to be designed - and I use it here to question the belief that complexity emerges from simplicity.
Just to make things clear I think knowledge is a work in progress and all what I've said about how humans can't create objects more complex than themselves may be turned upside down in the future when the technological singularity becomes a reality.
I don’t see it that way. I may have some false starts at trying to explain how I see this, so bear with me. But in my view, natural selection is not so much the child of evolution as its nemesis.
The term ‘natural selection’ refers to the idea that certain traits in a species are selected for by ‘nature’, who sifts out undesirable traits through the key parameters of survival, dominant access to resources and procreation. It seems ‘brilliant’ because we only see those who appear to be succeeding, and any failures are relegated to the past, to extinction - irrelevant, as it were.
But if we follow this ‘survival of the fittest’ theory through to its conclusion, then it seems that nature will eventually destroy itself in the process. It’s doomed ultimately to failure. Not so brilliant.
That we can act against our own survival, that we share resources and refrain from procreation; that we have evolved as fragile, soft-skinned, socially dependent creatures with exceptional awareness, intelligence and creativity; suggests to me that there is more to evolution than natural selection of random mutations describes. While survival is not an issue, we have continued to evolve - and in ways that run counter to the key parameters, suggesting that natural selection is a limiting factor on what is a broader evolutionary process - one that might not be as ‘random’ as we think.
While it seems that one can hypothetically formulate explanations for every possible species variation and trait using natural selection, I don’t believe that anyone ever has. It’s an overwhelming task. In those areas where we struggle - such as the evolution of the eye, multi-celled organisms, and human social behaviour such as altruism, suicide, love, etc - the concept of evolution as a creative impetus, with natural selection as its negation, seems to me a more plausible explanation than natural selection alone.
Survival of the fittest is brilliant?
But, natural selection is the brilliant child of evolution?
Survival of fittest is brilliant?
I think you said it more directly, but this is what I have been complaining about since the start. Glad I am not the only one to see it that way :smile:
I think you are right in that objectively I am a relativist. However, using the knowledge of "reality" that we can acquire, I think we can subjectively make conclusions on the best way to live in relation to certain (somewhat vague) goals.
And i may have missed an earlier response:
Quoting Brett
In the same way that a human is more complex than a hand, or a heart, or a brain...the human is just one component of society. So it is definitionally more complex...and yet this doesn't seem quite right, does it? My point in using that example was to show the big problem we have in using "simple" or "complex" without A LOT of qualifiers/specifiers.
I am not convinced that I understand consciousness (no, actually I am rather sure that I do not, haha)...does science think it understands it at this point (I really am not sure of the current consensus)?
How then, would I begin to rank them according to simplicity/complexity?
This is what I mean by A LOT more qualifiers/specifiers.
I think that "simple" and "complex" are relative concepts, like "big" and "small". So I can't see how they could take on a universal meaning...?
What is bigger a house or a car? One could answer that a house is TYPICALLY bigger, but there would be no universally correct answer. Again, more qualifiers are needed.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes :smile: That is definitely a qualifier. But only one, and a rather limited one (notice based on that society is definitely more complex than a single human...and yet we both agree that seems problematic in a way). So I don't think this is nonsense, "half the story" is more like it.
Quoting TheMadFool
Is my response above enough? Definitely let me know if there was an aspect you were touching on that I did not address.
Hmmm, after reading the rest maybe I will try to quickly (I stink at that) say my view of your two points:
Quoting TheMadFool
I have no doubt that you understand these words, it is just your attempt to ascribe universal meaning to relative words that leaves me struggling.
Quoting TheMadFool
I appreciate your challenge to this readily accepted position. I feel too poorly informed to really get into it. Prior to the big bang, were things ultimately complex or ultimately simple? Neither? The first few microseconds after the big bang all of the matter/energy in the universe was crammed into a much smaller "space"...wouldn't this have caused far more interactions between particles (or bits of energy)? Isn't that a "type" of complexity? What is more complex, energy or matter? Why?
So I can certainly accept your challenge as reasonable...I am just a long way from feeling confident either way.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I understand your point about ranking according to simplicity/complexity. But I feel there must be a point where you can begin where there is enough evidence to begin with and work up from there and find the place where it’s impossible to compare, use that point as a beginning reference. The problem is that whoever chooses to can say that there’s no unit of measurement and therefor no possibility of discussion, not even the ides of suspending your own beliefs for a moment.
For instance, is this acceptable or is it once again only the subjective view of David Heath?
“Life Cycle of a Freshwater Pearl Mussel. The life cycle of most freshwater mussels is more complex than in most bivalves, involving the parasitism of a fish host.(http://bivalves.teacherfriendlyguide.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=136).
It seems to me a comfortable position to sit back and dismiss the idea that humans might be more complex than bivalves as subjective, or too difficult to even consider. Maybe everyone could try just a little bit harder.
Quoting Possibility
Just a bit of frivolity there. Hopefully it won’t get me banned.
I think I grasp where you’re coming from, I’m just not in agreement with all of it.
I meant the brilliance of natural selection resulted in us. Some may not be impressed with the result, but that’s just indulgence of the fortunate. The fact that you can contemplate the universe in the way you do suggests some measure of success. It’s possible natural selection is coming to an end, who knows? But that’s the force behind us being here now. You view it as a negative force that restricts possibilities (if I understand you correctly). Maybe it’s possible we’ve reached that point in time where natural selection no longer has the control it once had, that we are no longer caught up in it. But if natural selection is about survival then for us it has done its job brilliantly.
Great point. However, notice that relativeness as applies here isn't the concept itself which is universal but to objects being compared to each other. A house may be heavier than a car and a car may be heavier than a person, relatively speaking, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of weight does it?
Thank you for your input though. Much appreciated.
In my view, it’s not natural selection, but the creative impetus, that displays its brilliance in us. We’ve developed an unprecedented capacity to interact with this creative impetus - to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration - and to do so in spite of what we often think of as an instinctive drive to ignore, isolate and exclude out of fear for our own survival.
Quoting Possibility
I could agree with you there. But then life would be not so much the evolution of dead matter but its nemesis.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Everything is part of the relative order of things. That is what is universal about everything. Everything is relative. Only death is absolute.
Quoting TheMadFool
The weight of an object is relative. That all objects under gravity have weight is absolute.
Quoting Possibility
Natural selection also displays brilliance. Most science and art are inspired by nature.
Well, I don’t see life as the evolution of dead matter, considering it wasn’t alive. But I’m not sure how you figure that life is the nemesis of dead matter from what I’ve said.
No? Did life not evolve out of dead matter?
Brute fact: living things die, dead things do not come alive.
BTW Females typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY),
Notice that men have the female sex chromosome Einstein?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
And?
It refutes your claim that life evolved out of dead matter.
How did life become 'alive' then?
Life didn't "come alive". That implies that there was a time when life was not alive, prior to coming alive, and that's contradictory.
No that implies there was once 'no life'. How do you go from 'no life' to life?
No, it didn’t. I don’t need to repeat what @Metaphysician Undercover has explained so clearly.
A nemesis is an inescapable agent of someone’s or something’s downfall. Life cannot cause the downfall of dead matter.
Life evolved out of chemical reactions.
I don't think it's possible to go from no life to life, that's what I've been saying. Therefore life must be first, and the fact that some people think that the universe went from no life to life simply indicates how little they know about the universe.
I didn't know we were discussing religion. I have no problem with that but you could have warned that your first principle is believing there is a living God creator
I was following the Scientific route. But I can do both.
Yes through 'natural selection' which you described as a nemesis.
No, not through ‘natural selection’ - that’s the point. What do you think that ‘natural selection’ is?
trial and error.
Evolution is the process of natural selection.
Trial and error is a process of problem solving that implies a desired result. What do you think is this ‘result’, and how does ‘natural selection’ know of this result?
Google:
Biological evolution can be considered as a form of trial and error. Random mutations and sexual genetic variations can be viewed as trials and poor reproductive fitness, or lack of improved fitness, as the error.
Quoting Possibility
'It' stays 'fit' long enough to replicate.
It doesn't. If you get it wrong you die. Only the ones that get it 'right' survive. Survival of the 'fittest'. Trial and error. Error, you dead.
Then it isn’t trial and error. It’s more like a limiting factor on a particular process.
it might be limited but it works. Get it right, you live. Get it wrong you die. Simple. Evolution works like a dumb idiot. If he gets it right it is by pure chance.
To say that life came from dead matter is not scientific at all, because it is not supported by any empirical evidence. It's just an illogical speculation.
It is the scientific belief. Or are you familiar with another scientific hypothesis?
That's false, there's nothing scientific about it at all. If it were scientific you could show me the process.
I think you're confusing "scientific" with "scientism".
No you are thinking of Scientology.
You know what an hypothesis is right? A theory for which process has not yet been demonstrated. If they could show you the process it would no longer be an hypothesis but a scientific fact.
Right, it's speculation, not science.
Do you think science can advance without speculation?
I covered this point some time ago in this thread. It is really frustrating that:
1. People don't read threads that are important.
2. People forget what they read.
3. People don't think for themselves.
My point was that there are qualities that can be ranked by size, such as length, without having a unit length to measure with, such as a yard stick or ruler. If you lay two strings side by side, anyone can tell which is longer, without a ruler.
But there are qualities that can't be measured or ranked, such as the love of a mother for her child as opposed to another mother's love for her child.
Complexity can be established in some cases. A car is more complex than a balance scale. Or a set of five equations with five unknowns and being second degree, is more complex than one equation with one unknown and being first degree. But it is invalid to call a hydroelectric complex less or more complex than a human's brain.
There are qualities that are impossible to intuit, yet measuring instruments exits that can establish the magnitude of the quality. Such, for instance, is radioactive radiation.
But for crying out loud, why can't you guys accept, that complexity has no measures, and other than in cases of obvious differences, there is no way of telling which is more and which is less complex.
No I don't think science can advance without speculation, but I don't think speculation is science, it's more like metaphysics.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Understand now?
Yes that are you constantly contradicting yourself.
Very few scientists believe organic life did not evolve on our planet from inorganic chemicals.
Science and metaphysics are distinct. Do you understand that? It appears like you are saying that most scientists have bad metaphysics. That's not surprising, as they are not trained in metaphysics.
that very few scientists believe organic life did not evolve on our planet from inorganic chemicals.
What are you arguing, that scientists tend to believe bad metaphysics?
That clever scientists disagree with dumb people like you.
Quoting Brett
Ok, fair point...for the sake of a basic conversation. Sure, humans are more complex than ants. But I would hesitate to say that humans are more complex than ants IN EVERY WAY. And consciousness is one of those difficult things to measure. Sure, human consciousness is (almost certainly) more complex than an ant's, and it is also (less certainly) more complex than a dog's, and if I had to bet, I would bet that it is more complex than all other organisms on earth...but if science later told me that killer whales actually had a consciousness that was as complex as our own, I would not be shocked.
What do we gain by just accepting the declaration that humans are the most complex organism?
Quoting Brett
I like science writing, haha. Notice they said "the life cycle of freshwater mussels is more complex" not mussels are more complex. "The life cycle" is a specific aspect of the mussel that can much more easily be compared as more or less complex.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
That was the point I as trying to make, not that mussels are more complex, but that there are areas of more complexity.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I think we were trying to determine if there could be something more complex than humans, then as usual it got bogged down in demands for meaning.
Well I am happy to concede that. I think most of this thread (not just with you), that is the point I have been making (and since that is the point you are making...one (or both) of us maybe misunderstood some aspect of the other). We can only compare very specific aspects that we can then label more or less complex.
Quoting Brett
haha, my bad. I feel like my brain automatically thinks of the one exception in any scenario and then I say, see it can't mean what you say because in this one specific example it doesn't work. sorry...it seems unavoidable...I think sometimes it is useful/productive in the conversation, and other times it just creates an unnecessary tangent when we all knew what was really meant :grimace:
Well we all have 'brilliant' minds.
I would say it bogged up, not down. If you mean different things with the same word, there is bound to be differences in expressed opinion. If you can get to a point where people who had been contentious can agree on meaning, then it's the first step to common understanding and agreement.
There could still be forever lasting conceptual differences, like between those who insist everything must have started sometime, even time, and those who can conceptualize things not starting ever, but existing since time eternal.
This is called "Rogerian Argument". My wife introduced me to the concept and I found it helpful.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rogerian-argument-1691920
Interestingly, Karl Popper (who I am just reading for the first time) suggests the opposite, which I found intriguing.
Everything I think of has been thought of before in philosophy.
The difference between you and me, Pantagruel, I think, is that I think of these things, without any prior reading, whereas you seem to be reading about them first.
The main thing is that we agree when our terms have been defined identically in our minds, because our understanding of topics, however differently arrived at, is the same. (-:
In fact, you and I could form a formidable writing pair. I would provide the ideas, and you, the precise and exact references.
Interesting. I feel I may have misrepresented myself somewhat. For the purposes of the forum, I tend to stick pretty close to source materials and ideas as a framework. In practice, most of what I write is extremely theoretical-conjectural and highly cross-disciplinary. A lot of stuff like ovdtogt's ill-fated speculations on space and time, but I try to remain within a framework of both historical and current-theoretical accuracy. Could consciousness be something akin to a quantum field, for example?
Honestly, I like reading the 'ground-up' theories because I know that they are the product of genuine and deep beliefs. Per Popper, they just need to be 'tested' against (possibly integrated with) whatever other relevant material is already out there. And there is a lot.