And so can be made indistinguishably close to either side of the middle? — fdrake

The closer you are to the 'middle' the better I suppose.

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? — Brett

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.

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. — god must be atheist

Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are. — god must be atheist

If you’d like to give me the unit of measurement behind this statement then we could work from there.

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. — 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.

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 — Possibility

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.

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. — 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?

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. — TheMadFool

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?

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? — Brett

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’...

Natural selection as proposed by Darwin has no effect on non-life. — Possibility

What do you mean by ‘non-life’?

What do you mean by ‘non-life’? — Brett

Non-living elements of the universe - rocks, planets, water, air, etc.

If you’d like to give me the unit of measurement behind this statement then we could work from there. — Brett

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.

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. — god must be atheist

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. — god must be atheist

Then why make this statement?

Is a dog's consciousness simpler or more complex than a human's? How so? — ZhouBoTong

Is there any form of consciousness that you would be prepared to accept as less complex than a human’s?

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. — 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?

I see ‘evolution’ and Darwinism as the same thing. — Brett

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.

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. — Brett

If that’s the case, then what is the rest of the universe there for?

Edit: though on reflection I see a weakness there about favouring traits that are beneficial, beneficial to what and how? — 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.

If that’s the case, then what is the rest of the universe there for? — Possibility

So I’m guessing then that from your perspective everything has a purpose, or at least is part of a whole with meaning.

I think that humans also evolve into something at least marginally more complex than themselves all the time: other humans. — Possibility

This is probably true.

So I’m guessing then that from your perspective everything has a purpose, or at least is part of a whole with meaning. — Brett

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.

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? — 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?

It is Darwin’s natural selection that assumes a purpose to everything, not me — Possibility

I don’t think Darwinism assumes a purpose. But I’m happy to use impetus instead of purpose in this conversation.

So you wouldn’t say that Darwinism assumes a purpose to survive, dominate and procreate?

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?

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? — Brett

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.

I assume a purpose in actions required to survive. But a purpose for evolution, no, because it’s dependent on random mutations. — Brett

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?

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? — Brett

‘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.

Then why make this statement? — Brett

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.