Heh, I think you've misdiagnosed Wayfarer here: the problem is not one of accepting or not accepting one or another variety of cause - its to do with very fact of explanation at all, which Wayfarer sees as a kind of existential threat to his worldview. The unexplained is not an expanandum but a desideratum. This is why he'll be eternally caught in inconsistency: he can provide no explanation for the fact of inexplicability on pain of negating his entire worldview. Hence the need to absolutize a 'line drawn in the sand' beyond which cannot be crossed. But beyond is just the glaring inability to account for the tautologically unaccountable - it cannot be explained because it cannot be explained. The last step is simply to give this yawning abyss a name - God, Mind, or whathaveyou.

In fact what makes me think that is a lack of cortical connections in the newborn brain. The wiring hasn't even grown. — apokrisis

But notice I didn't disagree with you regarding the idea of learning making the distinction occur. It is you who have placed a strawman. Pay attention to what I'm saying rather than purely reacting to stock answers.

It takes time for the newborn brain to form its discriminatory circuits. We can tell that from EEG recordings. Early on, a stimulus creates generalised firing. The brain reacts much the same to any environmental source of energy. Then the firing of individual cells starts to correlate with an ability to make perceptual discriminations. The brain does get specific and consciousness thus becomes a high contrast qualitative state. We can definitely be seeing red as we are not seeing green, etc. — apokrisis

Here again, you completely bypassed what I was saying. I said that you are moving the goal posts from qualia in general to distinct qualia. I already agreed that distinct qualia are created by learning (i.e. perceptual discriminations), but I did not agree that qualia itself was not there in some fashion as an event that is occurring. In other words SOME event of internal aspect is occurring to the newborn, even if not the one we are familiar with as discriminatory perception. There is some internal aspect of what it is like to be a newborn. Your major problem is replacing the HARD PROBLEM with EASY PROBLEMS and then constantly dodging the real question when it goes back to it. The result is that now we have semi-absurd answers like newborns do not have inner sensations.

Why a leap of faith? It's the very conclusion that inductive reasoning would result in – and it, as conclusion, would remain true and untarnished until in any way falsified … this by something that would then hypothetically point toward what is even closer to (absolute) objectivity.

If I interpret you right, it doesn’t seem like this process of induction poses a problem for you. As it doesn’t for me. Though it’s a problem for those that want absolute certainty, neither was it a problem for Hume. — javra

The underlying metaphysical underpinning of science is the assumption that things are as they have always been and will always be. That's the leap of faith. I have no problem with it. Stephen J. Gould wrote - "In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." He was speaking in particular about the scientific support for evolution, but it applies generally. So, putting our faith in uniformity is a bet, but why not?

So any usual notion of "material" goes right out the window. The image left in the physicist's mind is of a pure mathematical object. And then even the object gets chucked out as what the mind's eye "sees" is really all the possible rotations and translations that are the set of possible actions such an object would have. The mind's eye is left only with the ghostly kinesthetic play of pure relata. — apokrisis

Really interesting and really well written, but I think you are talking about yourself and not "the physicist." Just a look at the arguments about the interpretation of quantum mechanics shows that physicists are just as tied to a vision of a material world as the rest of us.

If a physicist is really pushed (and I am talking about the metaphysically informed ones, of whom there are plenty) then the question of "what is real?" does become pretty Platonic. A particle is a point. Unless we consider it as a string, or a loop, or a knot - each of those conceptions speaking to some different set of symmetries or invariances that seem to explain the symmetry breakings we actually then measure.

So any usual notion of "material" goes right out the window. The image left in the physicist's mind is of a pure mathematical object. And then even the object gets chucked out as what the mind's eye "sees" is really all the possible rotations and translations that are the set of possible actions such an object would have. The mind's eye is left only with the ghostly kinesthetic play of pure relata. — apokrisis

The question I place – to myself if not others – is whether or not these mathematics (and in theoretical maths, many disperse systems can be fathomed) are themselves constrained by something that is absolute objectivity (for lack of better terms) or, alternatively, themselves encompass the very notions we hold of absolute objectivity? Stated differently, are the maths themselves representations of something deeper that is – only allegorically stated - immovable or are the maths that go beyond the mind’s eye reality itself? Hence, for example, is that which is referred to by 0 and 1 – however codified by us - the reality itself, or are these referents universally applicable representations that both stem from a deeper reality which is impossible to represent? (most definitely not via relations)

It’s where I disagree with Nietzsche: his proclamation that there is no (absolute) truth. This even though I agree with him in that we as quantifiable beings cannot be aware of what this absolute truth is.

If it seems to you that I’m talking nonsense, please let me know. No worries whatsoever. But if not, on a metaphysical level of contemplation, are the foundations of mathematics (regardless of how universal and elusive to the mind’s eye) the foundational reality to you? Or do they, in a sense, emanate as very abstract, manifested representation of a deeper reality that cannot be itself represented?

I believe this is what differentiates us at root: I believe this deeper reality is real. It is the telos that I make mention of, and it is not a Heat Death.

But notice I didn't disagree with you regarding the idea of learning making the distinction occur. — schopenhauer1

And notice I was disagreeing with you that general qualia precede particular qualia. What precedes is vague qualia. It is differencing rather than difference that gets things started.

This may seem a technical distinction, but it is basic to Peircean logic and semiotics.

In other words SOME event of internal aspect is occurring to the newborn, even if not the one we are familiar with as discriminatory perception. There is some internal aspect of what it is like to be a newborn. Your major problem is replacing the HARD PROBLEM with EASY PROBLEMS and then constantly dodging the real question when it goes back to it. The result is that now we have semi-absurd answers like newborns do not have inner sensations. — schopenhauer1

Again, you are stuck with only two possible categories - the general and the particular.

The Peircean or systems approach is about having three categories, with vagueness or firstness as the undifferentiated from which generality vs particularity arises.

So all this talk of goal post shifting is simply that you don't understand that I am speaking from a different view of metaphysics. It is why you keep searching everything I say to find evidence of the dualistic sin of representationalism or Cartesianism.

If I am trying to bypass something, it is that underpowered system of metaphysics. ;)

So, putting our faith in uniformity is a bet, but why not? — T Clark

Because observations indicate that everything is continuously changing. Nothing is constant and this includes all of science.

"Scientists behind a theory that the speed of light is variable – and not constant as Einstein suggested – have produced a model with an exact figure on the spectral index, which they say is testable."

http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2016/11/29.htm#.WcM1TjYpBSA

The question I place – to myself if not others – is whether or not these mathematics (and in theoretical maths, many disperse systems can be fathomed) are themselves constrained by something that is absolute objectivity (for lack of better terms) or, alternatively, themselves encompass the very notions we hold of absolute objectivity? — javra

Symmetry maths is absolute in its invariance under transformation. So it is a dynamical and emergent "absolute objectivity". And there is likely the key difference.

It is normal to think of the absolute as the fixed and unchanging. But this flips it the other way. The absolute is that which change cannot change. All change is absorbed into what emerges as the limit on change itself.

Stated differently, are the maths themselves representations of something deeper that is – only allegorically stated - immovable or are the maths that go beyond the mind’s eye reality itself? — javra

It's trickier than that. If the mathematical object is an image of a limit, then it is the only thing which can't in fact really exist. A limit is the line that bounds the reality. It stands as the place where reality is aiming for and can never actually reach.

We are used to this in the maths of infinities, or concepts like instantaneous velocity, or the paradoxes of Zeno.

So it is pretty Platonic. A circle is the image of perfection. Rotational invariance pictured in the limit. And nothing real could be so perfect. However it is also free to try to approach that unbroken symmetry as closely as it can.

So yes, in the mathematical imagination, we do just take the limit and see an object emerge from the cloud of all its possible "imperfections". We can recognise the symmetrical figure towards which everything else now stands as a "striving tendency".

And I agree, mathematicians mostly don't take a more dynamical view. Unless they are working in higher topology and imagining how spaces or manifolds emerge from the naked possibilities of actions - the kind of stuff they are talking about with bundles or sheaves.

But in mathematical physics, emergent limits are the go. A successful theory of quantum gravity has to be like that. Classicality is what survives because all the quantum weirdness has averaged itself away somehow.

Hence, for example, is that which is referred to by 0 and 1 – however codified by us - the reality itself, or are these referents universally applicable representations that both stem from a deeper reality which is impossible to represent? (most definitely not via relations) — javra

Again, they would be real limits. And so unreal in being what material being can't reach. But also they would be considered causal, and so real in that sense, if your notion of causality itself is reframed in terms of constraints (or interpretive habits, as Peirce would put it).

So zero and one are names for particular limitations. One is perfectly individuated being. Zero is perfect absence. A constraints-based metaphysics says you can both approach either of these limits with arbitrary precision, and also you can never reach them. A residual uncertainty or spontaneity is simply what constraints-based thinking takes for granted.

So you can reify zero and one, treat then as actualities rather than regulating limits. But I am speaking for the metaphysics which flips that on its head. Now zero-ness and one-ness are wherever we arrive once we start to judge that any difference (or uncertainty) makes no actual difference.

I agree this seems an uncomfortable position to take perhaps. You want something definite at the heart of the matter. And Platonism seems to give you that - the perfect triangle that absolutely exists. Something is wrong if that perfect triangle is simply the emergent image of a host of imperfect triangles - triangles that just look close enough not so that their imperfections subjectively cease to matter.

The Platonic triangle promises you reality because its perfection is seen as the cause of all the actual material world's imperfect attempts. And then my talk of emergence says it is just an a-causal ghost ... like consciousness, the epiphenomenal smoke above the factory. What a disappointment. We were nearly there.

But as I say, a constraints-based metaphysics like Peircean semotics let's you have your cake and eat it. The ghost is causal. Because it real does have consequences.

This can't really be seen when talking about triangles - the creatures of plane geometry. But in nature we are talking about actually emergent situations. And so we are talking about universal objects such as vortexes, fractals and other natural geometries. Self-organising structure. Real symmetries and real symmetry breakings.

So yes, another level of distinction making here. The forms of classical geometry are how we imagine symmetry and symmetry-breaking in a frozen world of linear geometry. They are a good starting point, but they arise in a realm that is devoid of all dynamism. The paper is flat. There is no temporal or energetic dimension, no interaction, being represented.

But modern symmetry maths is so powerful at representing physical reality because its throws away everything but pure permutation. It is all action and no backdrop. Then out of that you get the structure that survives every attempt at self-erasure. The hard limit on unlimited change.

But if not, on a metaphysical level of contemplation, are the foundations of mathematics (regardless of how universal and elusive to the mind’s eye) the foundational reality to you? Or do they, in a sense, emanate as very abstract, manifested representation of a deeper reality that cannot be itself represented? — javra

My honest answer is that the form of existence looks like it can be completely explained by mathematical concepts. Plato was right in that sense. Reality might not be composed of tetrahedrons and other Platonic solids, but there just are structural necessities that we are picturing when talking about symmetries - the hard limits on unlimited change.

So complete success possible on that score. There can only be leptons and quarks because they are the simplest of all possible ways to break the symmetry of unbounded possibility.

But then, on the other hand, that leaves a fundamental mystery. Formal cause we can tick off. Material cause becomes the unexplained. We know there is actually a world that expresses these irreducible forms, but still there is also this fundamental notion of "action". We end up having to take that bit for granted in some fashion.

So there is a deeper reality it would seem - the vagueness that is the boundless Apeiron. A sea of pure formless fluctuation.

Of course I also am happy to have a go at explaining that too. There are ways to reduce that mystery as well. But my point is that the formal side of the equation looks very hopeful - in a way that it didn't need to. Symmetry principles may yield our physicalist "theory of everything".

But I am admitting (or it is what I always say) that the corollary is that this metaphysics depends on the matching notion of "unlimited action". And the existence of that would be a final "why anything?" kind of mystery.

However, also note how the metaphysical question itself has been transformed from the usual "why not nothing rather than something?" to now "why not everything if anything?". And we at least have the answer to that fundamental question. A state of everythingness already mostly cancels itself out to nothing. Unbound action or change must result in the structural invariance which is the indifference of a symmetry.

And that is the bottom-line of the last 500 years of highly successful physical and cosmological theory. Discover nature's hidden symmetries and you have something objectively fixed against which to then measure the way everywhere we can see has been left symmetry-broken in some fashion that is a difference that makes a difference.

I think you are talking about yourself and not "the physicist." — T Clark

In fact Einstein, Poincare, and others have described as best they can the way they thought problems through. The literature on mental imagery and creative thought is something I've studied. So I'm not pulling it completely out my arse here. :)

You can also see all this in the advance of mathematics itself. The story has been about all the concrete stuff you can throw out to get to the next level of abstraction. You get from geometry to topology by throwing out all "actual distances" and just imagining "naked spatial connections". Then higher topology is where you get to as you throw out every concrete notion of a space you can manage.

We have a law of thermodynamics that says all things will tend toward entropy, and the theory holds well. Then we have this situation where the law is being opposed. It could be described as a stone in the river that the water cannot push along, were it not for the fact that this stone has actually grown in its ability to resist entropy the longer it has been around.

There is no credible way to explain the rise of molecules to the extent needed for life. There is no credible way to explain their amalgamation into cycles, and then from cycles into systems, and then from systems in cells and cell groups and so on.

Each new level that appears, locks in the level beneath it, maximising its efficiency, securing it against the randomness of the environment. If there were a gradient in this direction for life, then a lot could be explained. We could envisage buckets over-flowing into more and more, larger and larger buckets. That is why I think we should be looking for a life force - a physical law that explains the gradient.

The fact is we don't have it. We have directionality, which is like intentionality, especially when the choice is against thermodynamics.

Beyond directional intentionality however, there is another layer, and that is the layer of apparent sentience. And to this point I bring up once more the mitochondria who had its genes stolen.

What fascinates me about the mitochondria I referenced earlier is that the battle occurred in the pitch dark. The chemically formed cell doesn't possess the sentience to know that there is a physical body inside it. The story is that a foreign cell (a mitochondria) invades a eurkaryote. Chemicals go crazy. In the end, rather than killing the mitochondria, the very exact part required for reproduction of the mitochondria is deleted from the mitochondria and appears in the nuclear DNA of the cell. WTF
--Chemistry would have an awfully hard time explaining that based on reactions.

There are many examplars of this type of sentience - What is it? The complex emergent semiotics of the system?

What fascinates me about the mitochondria I referenced earlier is that the battle occurred in the pitch dark. The chemically formed cell doesn't possess the sentience to know that there is a physical body inside it. The story is that a foreign cell (a mitochondria) invades a eurkaryote. Chemicals go crazy. In the end, rather than killing the mitochondria, the very exact part required for reproduction of the mitochondria is deleted from the mitochondria and appears in the nuclear DNA of the cell. WTF
--Chemistry would have an awfully hard time explaining that based on reactions. — MikeL

This is nothing like the story. The clue is in the word "symbiosis". The deal was mutually beneficial. It worked because the waste product of one was the fuel of the other. Together, both multiplied fruitfully because a division of labour made multicellular life possible.

The mitochondrion (or ancestral bacterium) lost the need for a lot of its genes as it was now safely tucked inside the host archaeon. It only retained the genes most critical for regulating its highly volatile respiratory activity. So the proteins needed to maintain control were kept close at hand. Then the other less time-critical genes could migrate be part of the DNA in the central nucleus.

Thus all can be explained by constraints of metabolic efficiency and genetic evolvability. The relationship was mutual. The genes landed up in the best places. And you will be home to about a quadrillion mitochondria. Things did not pan out so bad for them.

Hi Apokrisis, nice try, but your explanation falls a little short for me. Come on, you can do better than that.

The mitochondrion (or ancestral bacterium) lost the need for a lot of its genes as it was now safely tucked inside the host archaeon. — apokrisis

It was now safely tucked inside? Was it? I think you've glossed over a bit there. It is true that the nature of the relationship became symbiotic, but I can assure you it was not through the pleasant exchange of ideas.

A replicating lifeform inside another lifeform will kill it, cold.

It only retained the genes most critical for regulating its highly volatile respiratory activity. — apokrisis

That was a very smart decision. When did it come to this decision? Before or after it killed the host? It simply said, 'You know what, stuff everything except respiration. I'm going to destroy my ability to regulate my own cell division and maintain the health of myself, and I sure hope that I can figure out a way to keep surviving in this new environment, whatever it may be". Is that the reason that it decided to devolve when it had been doing so well?

So the proteins needed to maintain control were kept close at hand. Then the other less time-critical genes could migrate be part of the DNA in the central nucleus. — apokrisis

Could they? How did they come to that arrangement? Enterprise bargaining? The blind mitochondria said to the blind cell, "I don't know what the hell you are or where the hell I am but here comes some genes. Catch."

Thus all can be explained by constraints of metabolic efficiency and genetic evolvability. — apokrisis

I see.

A replicating lifeform inside another lifeform will kill it, cold. — MikeL

Well it was nice knowing you then. Goodbye to you and the 100 trillion bacteria living mostly symbiotically in your gut. And the vast variety of retroviruses hijacking a ride on your DNA.

That was a very smart decision. When did it come to this decision? Before or after it killed the host? — MikeL

Did you miss the key point? The host was a handy supply of its food. While it was a handy source of energy for its host. So the situation was SYMBIOTIC. :)

They went together so exactly that they created a whole new evolutionary era. All their fellow microbes were left in the dust. In 4 billion years, the other guys have shown no essential structural change.

But with their new super-powerful respiratory mechanism, the symbiont duo could swell to become single cells 15,000 times larger. And then become the vastly radiating variety of body forms that is multicellular life.

I'm not sure what your definition of a successful marriage is. But that must be a once in a planetary lifetime lucky break.

Could they? How did they come to that arrangement? Enterprise bargaining? The blind mitochondria said to the blind cell, "I don't know what the hell you are or where the hell I am but here comes some genes. Catch." — MikeL

This is a bit of smart alec reply given the realities of bacterial and archaeon sex. Look up how it works some time. Life at the microbial level is a genetic free for all. Cells are always throwing gene kits in each other's direction.

An individual E.coli only has room for 4000 genes. But it floats in a gene pool - a metagenome - of 18,000 genes that it can pick up as it needs as food sources change and a different kind of digestion might be needed, or whatever the environmental challenge happens to be.

You seem to be trying to extrapolate backwards from the highly regulated world of multicellular organisms to the open air orgy that is the microbial world. Fortunately evolution itself was going in the other direction.

What fascinates me about the mitochondria I referenced earlier is that the battle occurred in the pitch dark. The chemically formed cell doesn't possess the sentience to know that there is a physical body inside it. The story is that a foreign cell (a mitochondria) invades a eurkaryote. Chemicals go crazy. In the end, rather than killing the mitochondria, the very exact part required for reproduction of the mitochondria is deleted from the mitochondria and appears in the nuclear DNA of the cell. WTF
--Chemistry would have an awfully hard time explaining that based on reactions. — MikeL

Although I disagree with Apokrisis, this problem you pose of why the mitochondria survived the engulfment of the cell without being destroyed or destroying it is simply natural selection. The mitochondrial ancestors that destroyed the host cells clearly never made it as a symbiotic partner. The mitochondrial ancestors that were able to be destroyed by the host partner cells also never made it as symbiotic partners. However, mitochondrial ancestors that had the mutations that allowed for them to not reproduce but continue to survive in the cell, and the cells that had the mutation to allow the mitochondria to stay and provide its energy were selected for as they did better at survival than other cells that did not have this advantage.

The Peircean or systems approach is about having three categories, with vagueness or firstness as the undifferentiated from which generality vs particularity arises. — apokrisis

So the vagueness of the newborn = the newborn has no inner sensations? There is nothing of what it is like to be a newborn in your view? Again, that seems extreme.

Even granted this (which is a big granted), you have not explained how the connections "emerges". It's green because it's not blue is not explaining the experience just the causes. Again switching the hard for easy in a just so story.

A replicating lifeform inside another lifeform will kill it, cold.
— MikeL

Well it was nice knowing you then. Goodbye to you and the 100 trillion bacteria living mostly symbiotically in your gut. And the vast variety of retroviruses hijacking a ride on your DNA. — apokrisis

Well there's inside the body alongside our cells and there's inside the cell itself. The bacterial flora of our gut are not inside our cells, unlike the mitochondria. And if any of those retroviruses hitching a ride decide they might just pop out and see what's happening, guess what?

That was a very smart decision. When did it come to this decision? Before or after it killed the host?
— MikeL

Did you miss the key point? The host was a handy supply of its food. While it was a handy source of energy for its host. So the situation was SYMBIOTIC. :) — apokrisis

I agree that the host was a very good supply of food that the host cell had intended to use for itself. The mitochondria also provided energy for the cell, however, I think that some tweaking may have been needed here before they got it right. In the meantime you have a replicating cell that has invaded another replicating cell and is consuming it's resources. Not so symbiotic. Not yet.

They went together so exactly that they created a whole new evolutionary era. All their fellow microbes were left in the dust. In 4 billion years, the other guys have shown no essential structural change. — apokrisis

Wow, you've skipped right to the end of the story.

But it floats in a gene pool - a metagenome - of 18,000 genes that it can pick up as it needs as food sources change and a different kind of digestion might be needed, or whatever the environmental challenge happens to be. — apokrisis

The megagenome is interesting and you might have me there. I'll have to check it out.

In the meantime you have one cell membrane bound organism inside another cell membrane bound organism - What happened here? Did the mitochondria extrude its genome through its own cell membrane, (essentially throwing it away) have it get entangled with the host genome, somehow re-capture it's genome (lucky it hadn't floated off in the ocean)? And then in this seemingly lucky (for recapturing the genome it flushed out of its body) event suddenly find out that it was not so good after all, for in the recapturing of it's own genome processes it failed captured any of the host genome while also unfortunately losing the genes most critical for its own survival.

But not to worry because then the DNA of the host cell begins producing the promoters and transcription factors required for the mitochondria to survive (before the mitochondria does actually die of course - so within one generation unless it is assault of a mitochondrial army against the archaeon which could be feasible [ramping up the probability index for you there]).

So the happy ending for this chaotic disaster is the perfect regulation of the health of the mitochondria and the division of the mitochondria by the host cell, in exchange for energy it learnt to use. Not bad. Chalk one up for nature.

Could they? How did they come to that arrangement? Enterprise bargaining? The blind mitochondria said to the blind cell, "I don't know what the hell you are or where the hell I am but here comes some genes. Catch."
— MikeL

This is a bit of smart alec reply given the realities of bacterial and archaeon sex. — apokrisis

You're right, it was a bit tongue in cheek. I was just playing with you. Great to get your ideas, they always make me think.

And they both managed to find each other and hook up in the wide and deep oceans of the world? You would need a massive concentration of both. Let's take another look at your quote here.

However, mitochondrial ancestors that had the mutations that allowed for them to not reproduce but continue to survive in the cell, and the cells that had the mutation to allow the mitochondria to stay and provide its energy were selected for — schopenhauer1

If the mitochondrial ancestors had a mutation that didn't allow them to reproduce, guess what? No mitochondria. The assertion is that just by chance a mitochondria that will soon perish off the face of the earth because it can't reproduce drifts into a cell, that rather than killing it in fact has the capacity to allow it to reproduce and maintain it's health? That's one hell of a happy coincidence.

How about we just say the host cell snatched it out of the mitochondria? Seems so simple my way don't you think?

Newborn human babies have wired and functioning brainstems and so the level of sensory and orienting processing that goes with that. But it is surprising how lacking in neural differentiation they still are at the cortical level.

It is part of the human evolutionary story. They have to come out with brains half grown to fit through the limits created by a bipedal pelvis. At birth, they are still sprouting new cortical cells at the rate of a million each minute.

On the other hand, I held my baby daughters minutes after they were delivered. There was no doubt they had sensations. What I would question is your assumption that they had an "inner" quality, or that they were in any way distinct.

You see it is you that is wedded to a Cartesian theatre. You can't conceive of mind except that it is already like that. A space with a self watching a parade of definite sensations. But a baby has only the vaguest notion of a self separate from a world. It doesnt even have hands it controls.

So yes, the traditional Jamesian blooming, buzzing, confusion is as apt a characterisation as any.

If the mitochondrial ancestors had a mutation that didn't allow them to reproduce, guess what? No mitochondria. The assertion is that just by chance a mitochondria that will soon perish off the face of the earth because it can't reproduce drifts into a cell, that rather than killing it in fact has the capacity to allow it to reproduce and maintain it's health? That's one hell of a happy coincidence. — MikeL

If given enough time, there is probably a ratcheting factor. Where perhaps only one step in the mutation allowed for a slightly smaller reproduction rate (mitochondria that reproduced still but provided energy), died out quicker than the cell next door that had an extra mutation that allowed for the mitochondria not to produce on its own by transferring DNA functions to nucleus. This secondary mutation provided a much quicker selection rate and outlived its only slightly improved cousin who probably died out rather quickly compared with the cell that had the secondary mutation.

The digestive bacteria that cockroaches rely on do live inside cockroach cells. And they show the same big loss of genes as the result of that lifestyle.

Sounds interesting. I'll check it out.

So in your scenario you have mitochondria running between host cells while down regulating the expression of their genes? It's an interesting idea, except that the genes are those genes for reproduction and cell health.

I guess if you slowed the reproduction rate down for the mitochondria so it matched the host cell..... still, no need for the swap. The host cell has control and it has taken that control from the mitochondria. Interesting thoughts though Schopenhauer.

Idealism - if it follows its own logic - rejects material and efficient cause. Or it is forced to dualise them. — apokrisis

But where you depart from Aristotelianism, is that in his system, there is still a place for the Contemplation of the Good, which remains a hint of, or points towards, the immortal. The mind of the philosopher finds supreme repose in the contemplation of the Ideas, which are immortal.

its to do with very fact of explanation at all, which Wayfarer sees as a kind of existential threat to his worldview. — StreetlightX

It's not the very fact of explanation that I'm objecting to - it's the purported explanation being that the reason for life is the quickest route to non-existence. Worldly existence is not the portal towards a higher life, but a temporary diversion on the way to non-being. Life really doesn't exist for any reason, it is simply perturbations in the overall tendency towards maximum entropy. So ultimately, any 'reason' which Apokrisis' philosophy offers is subjective i.e. dependent on what I decide, what I designate as real or important. He has acknowledged this earlier in this thread.

My tentative understanding is that the whole rationale of the spiritual life is to 'awaken to an identity as that which is not subject to death'. That is communicated differently in different traditional and philosophical systems. In Christianity, it is the idea of Life, capital-L - a sense of awakening to the 'life of the spirit', which is nowadays, and lamely, understood in a rather 'pie in the sky' sense of being 'going to heaven when you die'. But properly speaking, the life of discipleship is living in that light, whilst still in ordinary existence. Of course, there is also a sense in which this is a hopeless quest, an utterly quixotic undertaking. But one has to persist, regardless.

The reason is sounds like nothing or a non-explanation to you, is because you have no comprehension of it, as we're both products of a culture which is devoted to undermining such an understanding. It's just that some of us are resisting, and some are complacent.

Newborn human babies have wired and functioning brainstems and so the level of sensory and orienting processing that goes with that. — apokrisis

It sounds here that you admit there is inner sensation however vague. What we do not want is simple analytic statements of a=a. We know that experiences have their physical correlate. But simply repeating the physical correlate as an answer to why there is inner sensation is not an answer. Again, that is just saying a=a.

But it is surprising how lacking in neural differentiation they still are at the cortical level. — apokrisis

No one is debating that part.

You see it is you that is wedded to a Cartesian theatre. You can't conceive of mind except that it is already like that. A space with a self watching a parade of definite sensations. But a baby has only the vaguest notion of a self separate from a world. It doesnt even have hands it controls.

So yes, the traditional Jamesian blooming, buzzing, confusion is as apt a characterisation as any. — apokrisis

No one is debating that the newborn experience is much different. The hard question is what is the nature of the experience of this blooming, buzzing, and confusion. It is there nonetheless, even in its primitive, very vague form. What you cannot do is get something from nothing like so much fiat. Saying "Green is not blue is not red" and therefore emergence of experience is only explaining how distinctions are created not how there is a sensation in the first place.

You said earlier:

It is the third thing of their interaction which is the process making a world. — apokrisis

Well, again the "interaction" and "process" is "something" a phenomena in and of itself which must be explained as it is. The interaction is happening in this event called experience. What is that as opposed to simply naming its constituents?

What you cannot do is get something from nothing like so much fiat — schopenhauer1

The logic of it is that it would be more like getting something from an undifferentiated state of everythingness. Vagueness is not nothingness but unrestricted potential. The newborn's problem would be a state of experiencing that is too much going on to the slightest stimulation.

So if you want to imagine a vague state of sensation, it is like a blooming, buzzing, confusion. Maybe like getting tumbled in a heavy surf, but without yet any sense of self as well as just sensory noise.

But properly speaking, the life of discipleship is living in that light, whilst still in ordinary existence. Of course, there is also a sense in which this is a hopeless quest, an utterly quixotic undertaking. But one has to persist, regardless. — Wayfarer

This sounds good, but what does it say that it is founded on logical paradoxes?

We have to live as if the passing life were the eternal one. It is a hopeless quest, yet we must persist.

Maybe paradox is a necessary characteristic here that you can explain? To my mind, these kinds of contradictions - if actually compelling - contain within them their own resolutions. They speak to the third thing of some balance.

It could be that we are inevitably seekers after meaning. And even though that is ultimately quixotic, that is still who we are and thus what we must do.

It isn't a crazy way to be until we stop to think about it - as that negentropic bent in us is evolved. But once we stop to think about it, it becomes crazy as we are now aware we could be doing "other".

I think this is the existential truth you are expressing. If we are always looking, then there must be something to find. Otherwise why the heck are we always looking? And can we actually continue the habit of looking knowing there is nothing to find? Can the habit itself fill a void despite its ultimate futility?

this problem you pose of why the mitochondria survived the engulfment of the cell without being destroyed or destroying it is simply natural selection. — schopenhauer1

This is where the sleight of hand occurs. Somehow, somewhere, something called natural selection emerges. It is not the end of the sleight of hand, but it permits others down the road. One by one, human traits (e.g. selection) are buried somewhere in the explanation. Where is this natural selection coming from? From around the cell? From within the cell. It's somewhere, it is guiding, and it's persistent, and it's repetitive. Very much like the mind.

It is absolutely mandatory that traits of the human mind are introduced in where explanation. The reason is because it actually is the mind that is doing it.

As the story builds, the introduction of mind traits becomes more and more egregious as you are highlighting in your discussion, but it is acceptable because we have already established that chemicals can be viewed as little minds.

So if you want to imagine a vague state of sensation, it is like a blooming, buzzing, confusion. Maybe like getting tumbled in a heavy surf, but without yet any sense of self as well as just sensory noise. — apokrisis

So there is an experience of sensory noise you at least admit. What is this experience (not what are its constituents of interactions)?

Related is what I asked but you did not address earlier:

Well, again the "interaction" and "process" is "something" a phenomena in and of itself which must be explained as it is. The interaction is happening in this event called experience. What is that as opposed to simply naming its constituents? — schopenhauer1

I think this is the existential truth you are expressing. If we are always looking, then there must be something to find. Otherwise why the heck are we always looking? And can we actually continue the habit of looking knowing there is nothing to find? Can the habit itself fill a void despite its ultimate futility? — apokrisis

I think the paradox comes from the fact of different perspectives. That is after all the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

That 'looking' can also be interpreted as an awareness of lack. We are seeking something, because we're aware there's something lacking, or missing, but can't say what. That in any case would be the Buddhist analysis. Our sense of identity is unstable, because it's based on an idea of solidity and permanence that we actually lack. So we're continually trying to fill that sense of lack - mostly through the drive for power, possessions and relationships. The religiously-inclined will pursue it through the idea of 'union with God'.

So in Buddhism, the training is about learning to understand that constant craving to be, or not to be - either trying to affirm ourselves as beyond death (which is called eternalism) or as being non-existent (nihilism - the latter is the more common).

The 'middle path' of Buddhism lies in rejection of what is called 'extremes' through the understanding of emptiness, Śūnyatā. So I suppose you could say, here Buddhism deals with that sense of lack by teaching you to understand its origin and meaning.

In any case, I think the upshot of that is the re-integration of the self at a higher level of understanding. From the viewpoint of the ego, it's annihilation (which is the meaning of Nirvana). But it's not simply non-existence or non-being - the tathagatha (the Buddha) embodies as way of being which is beyond being and non-being, neither existent nor non-existent.

Obviously that points off to another thread (or even other forum!) but is one response to the question.

This is where the sleight of hand occurs. Somehow, somewhere, something called natural selection emerges. It is not the end of the sleight of hand, but it permits others down the road. One by one, human traits (e.g. selection) are buried somewhere in the explanation. Where is this natural selection coming from? From around the cell? From within the cell. It's somewhere, it is guiding, and it's persistent, and it's repetitive. Very much like the mind.

It is absolutely mandatory that traits of the human mind are introduced in where explanation. The reason is because it actually is the mind that is doing it.

As the story builds, the introduction of mind traits becomes more and more egregious, but it is acceptable because we have already established that chemicals can be viewed as little minds. — Rich

Well, I may find the hard problem relatively intractable at this point, but if I can explain it by answering the questions with easy problems, I will. In other words, problems related to why some biological trait occurred have a well-known process of explanation through biological processes. Natural selection is simply the name for differential reproduction survival rates among a range of differences amongst a population. So in this case, it makes sense that cells benefited from mitochondrial invasion and thus survived better. Those with a mitochondrial invasion where the nucleus regulated aspects of its reproduction perhaps improved its survival rate even more.