No, not really. The anthropic principle, at least in the form that is respectable/generally accepted, is basically just a tautology, — Seppo

Oh really? The book I reviewed is indeed not "generally accepted". And the authors were aware that they were going beyond the conservative interpretation of WAP, to propose a more radical perspective. So, they support their conclusion with a lot of technical data that was way over my head. If you are more into the math, maybe you can critique them on scientific facts instead of their unpopular interpretation. Obviously, their proposed new paradigm of cosmology is not accepted by the old guard who defend a more traditional reductive worldview. :smile:

Weak, Strong, and Final Cosmologies :
But this book is mostly concerned with the anthropogenic implications of current scientific knowledge. Which, they claim, reveals a “series of mysterious coincidences between the numerical values of the fundamental constants of Nature”. And they also contend that “our picture of the universe and its laws are influenced by an unavoidable selection effect . . . this self-selection principle . . . is usually called the Weak Anthropic Principle”(WAP). Since the WAP is essentially a tautology, it only implies that those coincidental values and laws are consistent with the emergence of Life, but doesn’t imply design or specify the humanoid species.
BothAnd Blog, post 116

I'm hoping that you're misrepresenting them, because this is a mess. "Natural selection" was not found "on a cosmic scale" because natural selection in Darwin's sense, and in the sense that is actually well-established, pertains to a selection effect on biological organisms — Seppo

I agree that your emotional response to a brief overview of a complex scientific proposal is "a mess". But, until you read the book itself you have no grounds for concluding that I'm misrepresenting the meaning of a book on cutting-edge Cosmology. The authors were physicists, and expanding Darwin's notion beyond its limited biological application up to a universal & cosmic scale. What you say is "well-established" is what they intended to dis-establish. Theirs is a Cosmological Argument based on 20th century science instead of medieval theology. Their rationale is an attempt to scientifically explain the emergence of homo sapiens, instead of dismissing such an improbable event as a mere random accident of impersonal Fate. :cool:

Cosmological Principle :
"But, Barrow and Tipler go much farther than that modest assertion [WAP}. “There is one interesting approach we can take which employs an Anthropic Principle in a more adventurous and speculative manner . . .”
BothAnd Blog, post 116

Anthropocentric vs Cosmocentric :
"Voltaire’s contemporary, skeptical philosopher David Hume, following the new deductive & reductive scientific methodology, reasoned that “the Design Argument is unscientific”. Which is true, because it is an inductive & holistic form of reasoning, which allows inference to leap over gaps in knowledge. But then, Inference, from known to unknown, is always based on incomplete information."
BothAnd Blog, post 116

Ah yes, I reel in terror from the daring and heroic Internet Truth-Speaker, wreaking havok on our "settled worldviews" with his speculative religious philosophy and pseudoscience.. — Seppo

Your emotional reaction to blasphemy of revered Scientific Truth sounds similar to Muslim's outrage at any criticism of the Holy Koran. Science is not "settled" or static. Like sharks & evolution, Science must progress or die. I don't agree with all of the authors' speculations. But theirs is not a "religious" or "pseudoscience" notion. It is not presented as an argument from authority, but from evidence. And is always open to counter-evidence. In any case, your scandalized outburst is not a philosophical critique. It sounds more like a religious defense of divinely revealed Truth. :nerd:

SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED
The purpose of this non-profit organization Science Is Never Settled is to remind people of what all good scientists know, science is never settled.
https://scienceisneversettled.com/

Is the science settled? No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties.
https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

And calling Albert Einstein a "soft scientist" is about as inaccurate a description as I can think of. — T Clark

I'm sorry if I blasphemed your idol by calling him "soft". I meant no disrespect. Instead, I was just making a relevant distinction between Empirical scientists, who get their hands dirty, and Theoretical scientists, who get callouses on their pencil fingers. Albert did no physical experiments, and he used mathematics only to translate his qualitative subjective scenarios into the universal language of logical relationships. For those not conversant with the arcane conventions of mathematics, he described his thought experiments in metaphorical imagery, such as trains & elevators. Would you like to suggest a less offensive way to denote the difference between pragmatic demonstrative science and theoretical speculative philosophy? :nerd:

No, not really. The anthropic principle merely tells us that there is a selection effect on any observations we can make, in virtue of the fact that we exist in the first place to make those observations. — Seppo

Yes, really. :smile:

The authors of the ACP book I quoted go beyond the mere evidence of a "selection effect" to imply that Darwin's aimless "Natural Selection" was found, on a cosmic scale, to be -- lawfully and seemingly intentionally -- directed toward the emergence of animated Life, and eventually of intentional Mind. This then-novel notion was not quite as outrageous as some made it out to be. Darwin based his own term on the future-oriented intentions of human breeders, who deliberately set-out to produce sheep with more wool, and dogs with specialized sizes, shapes, and temperaments. Of course, Darwin was reluctant to express the obvious religious implication of design in nature. Yet, ACP is still technically Natural selection, because it predates human Cultural Selection

However, those theoretical physicists, a century later, were aware of Darwin's dilemma : both theists and atheists were outraged at his unorthodox theory. So, they were hesitant to use the touchy term "Teleology", and substituted the less familiar words "Teleonomy" or "Eutaxiology". That minor distinction only meant that they didn't claim to "know" (e.g. by revelation) the ultimate goal of the progressive process. They merely interpreted the evidence to-date as Anthropological or Anthropogenic in direction.

Since then, some have looked even further into the future, envisioning "trans-human" cybernetic successors to the homo sapiens species. Anyway, the fierce ferment among theorists has resulted in a hierarchy of interpretations of the abstract numerical evidence presented. The Weak AP was merely a current status report, as you noted. But the Strong AP says that "Our existence is the end goal of a plan". And the authors of the book go on to propose an even more radical "Final AP".

So, if this 21st century version of Teleology sounds un-orthodox to you, it's in good company with Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and Schrodinger et al, who introduced disruptive novel paradigms into the philosophical conversation, and in the expanding scientific understanding of the ever-surprising underlying actuality of apparent Reality.. But. don't blame me --- if your settled worldview is threatened by positive Evolution. I'm just the reporter of good news for the future of the living & thinking Cosmos. :wink:

Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes ...
___Wikipedia
Note -- How could human purposefulness arise from a random confluence of atoms?

Eutaxiology (from the Greek eu – good, and tax – order) is the philosophical study of order and design. It is distinguished from teleology in that it does not focus on the purpose or goal of a given structure or process, merely the degree and complexity of the structure or process
___Wikipedia

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
"But, Barrow and Tipler go much farther than that modest assertion. “There is one interesting approach we can take which employs an Anthropic Principle in a more adventurous and speculative manner . . .” In fact, they extrapolate beyond Carter’s limited WAP to speculate on the ultimate destiny of the universe, taking not only a Strong interpretation (SAP), but going so far as to present a Final Anthropic Principle (FAP). They express their confidence in no uncertain terms : “mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”. ___Barrow & Tipler, physicists,
BothAnd Blog, post 116

"prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” ___J.A. Wheeler, theoretical physicist.
BothAnd Blog, post 116

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe. ____John D. Barrow
https://philpapers.org/rec/BARTAC-2

And it's not just between you and me, I'm talking about people who understand the specifics of evolution better than we do. — T Clark

You put your finger on the difference between my general philosophical worldview and your specific scientific paradigm. I suspect that you think I'm making a scientific claim, when I say that "evolution is qualitatively progressive". But, since I'm not a scientist, I don't make authoritarian statements about the quantitative mechanics of physics. I do however cite those "soft" scientists, such as Einstein, who are more theoretical & philosophical than empirical & technological. Someone once asked him where his laboratory was, and he simply held up a pencil.

Most "hard" scientists, in their dissection of nature, take a reductive & analytical approach to their work. But philosophers are dealing with imaginary metaphysical Ideas, not carving reality at its physical joints. So, you might expect that their methods should be adapted to their invisible & intangible subject (non-)matter. Ironically, some philosophers, perhaps goaded by physics envy, attempt to apply the same methods that work on the whats of material objects, to their study of the whys of mental concepts.

Aristotle distinguished between hard & soft science by dividing his treatise into two books. He considered both to be relevant to Phusis (Greek for Nature). But recognized that objective nature and subjective human culture required different approaches. That's why the book we now know as The Meta-Physics is not based on direct observation & physical dissection, but on conversation & rational analysis.

What I'm saying here is that we are talking past each other. When I present concepts of "soft" science, you interpret them as-if they are assertions of "hard" science. That's why you still don't understand what I mean by "progressive" evolution. You may interpret that to mean Quantitative improvement, while I'm talking about Qualitative advancement. But, there is no natural empirical evidence for Qualia. So, all we have to go on is human opinions. Are you better-off than a cave-man? Your opinion (or belief) is just as true as mine : it's a no-win tug-of-war, because the rope is stretchy.

That's why hard science makes rapid physical progress in controlling Nature, while soft philosophy keeps rehashing the same old questions about Human Nature & Culture. Beliefs & Opinions, even those of experts, are always debatable. And Philosophy is not progressive in any empirical sense. Hence, the threads on this forum that go in circles for months without reaching a consensus. The only intellectual progress is within the individual mind. My personal worldview is sharpened by grinding against the rough edges of hard science. :smile:


Hard vs Soft Sciences :
Hard sciences use math explicitly, they have more control over the variables and conclusions. They include physics, chemistry and astronomy. Soft sciences use the process of collecting empirical data then use the best methods possible to analyze the information. ... They include economics, political science and sociology.
https://www.usu.edu/today/story/whats-the-gripe-between-hard-and-soft-sciences-the-debate-rages-on

Teleonomy :
Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat), "Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Teleonomy and Evolution :
Mayr suggested that we can use the term teleonomy to represent something that operates according to a purpose because of a program.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/teleonomy-and-evolution/

Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer :
"Darwin accepted that organisms are “designed” for certain purposes, that is, they are functionally organized."
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle implies that the evolution of the cosmos is teleological.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


Barrow and Tipler didn’t invent the notion of an Anthropic (human oriented) Principle in Nature. They merely digested many different cosmological theories over centuries into a form that is amenable to the technical and mathematical format of modern science. They “traced the history of the underlying world-view in which it has germinated”. . . . However, the authors prefer the term “eutaxiological”, which means that the end state is unknown (i.e. no prophecy), and implies that the Process may be the Purpose. But first, they address the Copernican assumption (rule of thumb), underlying most of modern cosmology. Which asserts as a “principle” – based on 17th century observations – that “we [humans] do not occupy a privileged position in the Universe”. To which, the authors reply that “our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers”.
excerpt from BothAnd Blog, post 116

I don't believe evolution is progressive, but that's not what I argued. All I argued is that the position that evolution is progressive is not obvious or self-evident. It's not hard to deny. — T Clark

Denial is easy; understanding is hard.

Obviously, if you doubt that evolution is progressive, then it's not "obvious or self-evident" to you. But, if you compare the present state of the universe to its original state, the cosmic scale of change is undeniable. It is even quite apparent in biology, as "progressive speciation" is well documented, despite the occasional extinction events.

If you are thinking in terms of Moral progress though, then that's an ethical question, which is always up for debate, because there is no objective empirical evidence, just subjective personal beliefs. Philosophical questions are seldom "obvious", even though some axioms are considered to be "self evident" --- progress is not axiomatic or factual. So, we argue analogies & metaphors.

Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. Of course "teleological" or "logical" or "ethical" progression is another story. What kind of evolutionary change would you look for to determine whether evolution is "progressive" or "digressive" or "static"? You'll need to define your terms. :smile:

Evolutionary Progress? :
That the history of life on Earth manifests some sort of progress has seemed obvious to many biologists.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/50/5/451/264248

FWIW, If you Google "progressive speciation", you can make your own list of expert opinions.
"Speciation results from the progressive accumulation of mutations . . ."
"species represent progressive stages . . ."
"Progressive levels of trait divergence . . . "

"Adams suggests that there is such a thing as moral progress, ..."
https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-there-such-thing-as-moral-progress.html

↪Gnomon
:zip: — 180 Proof

Thanks for your articulate criticism of my post. It demonstrates the depth of your understanding. :joke:

That's all I claimed. You have not responded to that claim. Many people like to claim that their positions are unquestionable, self-evident, when they are not. That's what you have done. — T Clark

I hope you will pardon me if I don't respond directly to your categorical claim that my expressed opinions are incorrect. They are not scientific factual assertions, but personal philosophical perspectives. My opinions may sound confident, because I have given them a lot of thought, and presented my thesis on a webpage. Besides, I have replied to similar "claims" repeatedly ad infinitum on this forum. For example, the post linked below in the FreeWill thread treats the Teleological argument without specifically mentioning it.

If you need more than that, my blog has several posts on the topic of Teleology : Post 7 -- Enformation : Process of Creation (teleological tendencies) : Post 15 -- Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism (teleological implications) ; Post 33 -- What is EnFormAction? (teleological direction) ; Post 60 -- Teleological Evolution (phase changes, emergences, speciations). If you will PM me, I can give you links to to these and many other detailed essays on similar topics, each with lots of explanatory sidenotes & links to other information. My opinions are definitely not expressed as "unquestionable". There is a blog forum where you can post your criticism in more specific terms. :cool:

Evolutionary Emergence of Freewill :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/654052

"Speaking of "Emergence" and other mysterious appearances". — 180 Proof

Speaking of evolutionary emergence, Charles Darwin touched on the notion of FreeWill in his The Descent of Man. In a Philosophy Now article, Samuel Grove, author of Retrieving Darwin's Revolutionary Idea, said that "Darwin was fascinated by the problem of free will". Then, he mused, "What does this mean in practical terms? . . . . Darwin's hunch was that it was intimately related to the variation in nature". But I would suggest that the freethought of upright apes is a function of both Random Variation to produce novel forms, and of Positive Selection criteria to allow only the best models to proceed into the next generation. This results in complexification and organization, which some of us view as progression.

Grove noted that "Darwin also faced a couple of philosophical paradoxes in applying natural selection to man" The first conundrum was, "how natural selection -- which was a history of errors, faults, failures, and fallacies -- could give rise to a person capable of self-knowledge and truth". We now see that a product of that heuristic (trial & error) process is the self-aware descendant of those knuckle-walking nit-picking apes. But Darwin already had the right idea; he just failed to see how the combination of randomness and selectiveness could be creative and progressive.

Ironically, these imaginative sky-walkers have just placed their own technological creation into a stable orbit a million miles from its origin. Although a product of intentional algorithms, it was also the end result of many trials & errors. This golden-eye-in-the-sky should be able to look back into cosmic history to see what the universe looked like billions of years before animated creatures emerged from that seemingly wasteful procedure of making zillions of mistakes, but selecting only a few of the best to make newer & better errors. This illustrates how fecundity and selectivity can result in a means for the meandering cosmos to become self-aware.

Therefore we have evidence to show that a combination of variation & selection can solve the first paradox of free will : by inadvertently producing self-conscious creatures. But that leads to the second paradox : how could blind groping Nature create the global organism of self-directed Culture? Darwin admitted that "nature's productions . . . . plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship". Grove noted that we could define human Culture & Civilization as "consciously-directed evolution". He said, "ironically, the very fact that natural selection does apply to us means we can't apply it to us, or it would cease to be Natural . . . . This is the paradox. This was the essence of Darwin's dilemma." Somehow, conscious Artificial selection & evolution has emerged from a program of unconscious Natural reproduction & progression. :nerd:

Shhhhh! DON'T TELL ANYONE I COULDN'T EXPLAIN
THE EMERGENCE OF FREEWILL

I believe this is not true. Do you have some references? — T Clark

Yes. I provide links to expert opinions in all of my posts, to provide support for my layman's opinions. As you noted, the experts are not unanimous in their assessment. Positive progression is a matter of interpretation, and the scope of your worldview.

You can check-out my other threads if you are interested in references. And my blog goes into even deeper detail, with links & details. But then, you are entitled to your own opinion. So, I won't argue with you.

References won't convince you, if you are not looking at them from an open-minded perspective. For example, reverse the timeline in the image below --- is the athletic ape better than the couch potato? Now substitute the image below for the blob, and do you see any progress? :joke:


Why Evolution is Progressive :
One of the outstanding recent scandals of biology has been the notion that evolution is not progressive, a concept that flaunts the evidence of our eyes.
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789814350501_0011

POSITIVE PROGRESSION ?

Wait wait. On the topic of evolution I'm not at all bitter or pessimistic. — Bitter Crank

Great! I was just playing with your screenname. :smile:

I too, am cautiously optimistic that evolution is moving toward an improved version of the paradoxical world we now inhabit. That's because I tend to focus on the sensible stuff, instead of the absurdities, At least, I don't have to worry about sabre-tooth tigers sniffing around my cave. I don't expect to be around to evaluate the next incremental upgrade --- maybe beating our bombs into plowshares. But the history of progression from next-to-nothingness to awesome everythingness (97 light-years across), is evident. And we now expect to see more of our cosmic history with the new James Webb way-back-machine.

Also, it's the undeniable progression in organization that I refer to as "Teleology", moving toward an improved future for all of us passengers on the Blue Marble. Of course, progress in inter-personal morality seems to be much slower than in impersonal technology. However, I do agree with Steven Pinker that human societies have improved in many ways, even as over-population and ecological devolution present newer & bigger problems for each generation to deal with. Together, we can work it out.

Human Culture hasn't yet created an artificial Garden of Eden. But we're getting there, with two steps forward and one step back. That's all you can expect from the heuristic (trial & error) mechanism of random variation and natural selection. Buzz Lightyear defined Teleology as "to the future, and beyond". :nerd:

I was in joke-mode, so don't take what I said as an argument. — Bitter Crank

That's OK. I don't take the smoke-without-fire too seriously. It's par for the course, for philosophers who explore the outer limits of human knowledge, where angels fear to post their unpopular opinions.

Both Progressive Evolution and Digressive Devolution are opinions based partly on prior attitudes and partly on partial evidence. So, while my non-expert opinion is more sweetly optimistic than your bitter pessimism, I'm encouraged by the pioneering sober scientists, who take the risk to row against the tide of stuffy academic authority. :joke:

And as you'll notice from the article, teleology in biology remains controversial, and even its proponents are quite explicit that they're talking about something different from teleology as e.g. Aristotle would have understood it (chiefly, in jettisoning the theological/metaphysical elements in favor of a naturalistic approach). — Seppo

Oh yes. I notice on this forum that "Teleology" is a hackle-raising four-letter-word for some people. For them, it implies an obsolete anti-science ideology. But my personal philosophical worldview is compatible with the ambiguity & uncertainty of post-quantum cutting-edge science, if not with the black & white certainty of 19th century Classical Physics.

From my peripheral perspective, the Metaphysics of Aristotle seem quite prescient. However, when challenged by the physics-is-Truth disciples, I rely on modern scientific specialists instead of a pre-scientific generalist. But, I still insist on calling the uncharted uncertainties of Quantum Queerness "Meta-Physics" (i.e. grudgingly accepted, but not yet explained by physics). And that medieval term raises the hackles even more. Still, I enjoy the philosophical exercise of chewing on controversial questions. :cool:

From quantum non-locality entanglement,
We know that information’s primary
Over distance, that objects don’t have to
Be near each other to have relation. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. A statistical relationship is not spatial, or quantitative, but informative & qualitative. For example, a mathematical Ratio compares abstract values to determine how far they are from equality. Even Gravity is not spooky action at a distance, as Newton assumed. It's a relative & proportional Ratio between physical objects. Ratios are not real and physical. They are ideal and mental. However, abstract Ratios can be causal in the sense of Constructive Absence. :smile:

PS__A statistical state is not a place in physical space, but in abstract possibility Space.

Many evolutionary biologists do not believe evolution is progressive. I looked on the web for information about the distribution of biologists' opinions on the subject, but I couldn't find any. — T Clark

If you only look at the top lines of a Google search, you'll only see the most popular ideas, not the most perceptive. The Stanford entry below provides names & opinions. :smile:

Teleological Notions in Biology :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

"Teleology" is method of invalid "inference" consisting of ex post facto rationalizing (e.g. F. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Peirce, Popper ...). — 180 Proof

Name-dropping is not a philosophical argument. :smile:

Only for Aristotlean pre-moderns (pseudo-science peddlers like e.g. Lamarckians, Chardinites, Sheldrakeans) who fail to understand neo-Darwinian evolution. — 180 Proof

Name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:

IF our world was designed, then it wasn't designed very well. — Bitter Crank

You seem to be using the term "designed" in the religious sense of the creator of a perfect Garden of Eden. But, even the storytellers of that myth were aware that the world they inhabited was far from perfection. So, they imagined that the world began in a perfect state, and had nowhere to go but downhill.

However, those who propose secular Teleology today are not the blind buffoons you make them out to be. Instead, they understand that perfection is the end of an evolutionary process, not the beginning or middle. The path to perfection is an uphill climb. So, your criticism is aimed at the wrong target. Open both eyes, and you'll focus better. :smile:

PS__Evolution is a heuristic (trial & error) process. But you are focusing on the errors instead of the marvelous advances that instill feelings of awe in unromantic scientists..

"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein

I don't know that his is true. It certainly isn't true for today's philosophers and scientists. Do you have specific information on beliefs over time? — T Clark

Teleological explanations for the evolution of "endless forms most beautiful" are certainly not mainstream today, in secular science. But there is a strong trend, especially in the fields of Complexity & Cosmology to present (non-divine) scientific models of Teleology. Randomness is inherently non-directional and patternless. So, it must be the unknown, but implicit, standard-setter of "Natural Selection" that mandated the fitness criteria for propagating the next generation of natural forms. Moreover, the 'natural laws" that regulate all causes in the world, must either be taken-for-granted, without explanation, or attributed to some logical organizer.

I won't take the time to produce a history of teleology in philosophy. But, I will point-out that, until Darwin & Wallace proposed their theory of Natural Selection, nobody had any better explanation for the orderly & constructive progression of Nature than an intentional First Cause. Some deep thinkers, who pondered the process we now call "evolution", imagined a super-human Lawmaker, while others proposed a more abstract principle, such as LOGOS. As the articles below illustrate, it's not just little ole me that sees signs of directionality in the world's development, from a simple Singularity to the cosmic complexity we see today. And, sitting atop the pyramid of progress is the human brain, often described as "the most complex object in the universe. :nerd:


Natural Selection, Teleology, and the Logos: From Darwin to the Oxford Neo-Darwinists, 1859-1909 :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/301989

Why Teleology Isn't Dead :
Yet, as a recent spate of books by scientists suggests, science itself may have room for a new form of teleology, a new way to quantify and grasp a goal-driven directionality in nature, one more robust than the Aristotelian version, but one unafraid to acknowledge a progressive movement in the evolution of life toward consciousness.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2016/06/08/why-teleology-isnt-dead/?sh=79f3c3a06d69

Teleological Notions in Biology :
The manifest appearance of function and purpose in living systems is responsible for the prevalence of apparently teleological explanations of organismic structure and behavior in biology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems.

"There are few places in natural sciences where asking teleological questions is allowed: one is biology," writes SFI Professor Michael Lachmann."
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/evolution-evolving-darwin-day-2021

that it is "absurd" to claim to know what cannot be known here and now. — 180 Proof

I agree that apocalyptic Prophets and commercial Crystal Ball Readers sometimes make absurd claims. But economic analysts and weather forecasters are more scientific in their methods. They don't claim to "know what can't be known". So, you shouldn't tar them with the same brush, as the psychics, whose predictions are all over the map. Philosophers, through the ages have mostly agreed that our world appears to be designed, and tried to guess the intentions of the designer. Their conjectures may prove wrong in the details, but agree on the general direction : upward. We now know that evolution began as a Planck-scale speck of Potential, and has produced an immeasurable Cosmos with billions of galaxies, and at least one planet with living & thinking organism. Is it absurd to conclude that something important is going on?

Anyway, the philosophical concept of Teleology is not about personal prospects or divine retribution, but about the rational inference of progression & purpose in evolution. That evolution is progressive is hard to deny. But the inference of Purpose is a debatable opinion. Simple erratic causation, like billiard balls bouncing around due to an earthquake is clearly accidental. But when those balls go straight into pockets, we may reasonably look around to see where the impetus came from. In the game of pool, the Prime Cause of that progression is obvious : the man with a stick, and a smile or frown on his face.

But in evolution, the stick-wielder is hidden behind a zillion solar cycles of misty Time. So the original imparter of momentum must be rationally inferred from our experience with causation-in-general. It's not absurd to assume that every chain of causation has an initial link (the Causal Agent), and a terminal link (The End). Aristotle labelled the Prime Mover as the "First Cause". But, he also noted that motion in a non-random direction must have an intentional impetus, which he defined as the "Final Cause". And if the chain makes upward progress from simple to complex, or from seed to tree, we can logically infer that the Prime Cause was not an accident, but intentional.

Hence, even if the future End State is unknown & possibly unknowable, we can deduce the general future trajectory of the causal chain, and logically label its final state the "Purpose" of the unknown Originator. That's the function of Reasoning : a> to fill gaps in knowledge ; b> to predict the future from past experience. Yet, such Prognostication is not an exact science -- it's merely an exercise in rational philosophical speculation. :cool:

Psychic Predictions :
Super Bowl LVI will be played on February 13th 2022, at SoFi Stadium (Cal. Predictions diverged, there was no unanimity amongst our psychics, mediums and ...

A philosophy of teleology sees purpose in ends rather than stated causes, making the outcome the actual, or "final" cause.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/teleology

The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism. — SwampMan

It's true that in Mesopotamian & Mediterranean traditions, teleological arguments were produced by theologians to defend their belief in the invisible deity (Theism) variously defined by the Abrahamic lineage, of Hebrews, Jews, Christians, and Muslims. But other cultures have different definitions & arguments for their preferred imaginary Author of Reality. Most, if not all, of them assume some kind of creation event (First Cause), and some subsequent progression (evolution) of the creation toward some final resolution (teleology), for some divine reason that may be specified, or left to your imagination. However, there are a few minority belief systems that leave the definition of deity obscure, for lack of direct revelation.

One of those alternative models of reality is Deism, which is not a religion, but a philosophical worldview that observes order (non-randomness) & meaning (logic) in the world, then infers the necessity for a logical organizer of some kind (e.g. LOGOS) to impose order on chaos, and to create meaningful patterns in randomness. Although they observe a positive direction in evolution (complexity & self-organization), they have only limited scientific knowledge and imperfect human reasoning, from which to predict the future course of evolution. Since the Purpose and Final Goal of our contingent & temporary world is unknown, any speculation on destination would not technically be teleo- (end) logical, but mesia- (middle) logical : the view from the middle of the process. :smile:


Note -- for those who see no lawful order or meaningful direction in the physical world, attributions of intention & purpose would be literally Absurd. But such an illogical world would also make Science and Philosophy absurd.

"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein

Reality can not make mistakes. — vanzhandz

I agree with your general implication, that whatever will be is what will become real. Hence, each individual's destiny was "meant to be" in some general sense. Others though, will pick apart your wording. For example, what do you mean by "reality"?

I'll leave the buzzards to scavenge over your terminology. So, I'll just note that "reality" is not absolutely Deterministic. Instead, Evolution is heuristic*, which means "trial & error". Therefore, the future state of the world is never absolutely certain, but always open to serendipity (chance). Which allows sentient beings some maneuvering room on the road to destiny. :smile:

* This notion of "heuristic evolution" is being discussed on the Free Will vs Determinism thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/653374

Que sera, sera
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
___Doris Day, Frank De Vol

Given that there are clear restraints on pure Free Will, I think the focus of the debate is between Compatibilism and Determinism. And since we can't prove determinism in every situation, logic compels us to accept compatibilism since that is the only theory which can explain all the things we observe. — Ree Zen

Yes. That's what I mean by "FreeWill within Determinism" (as explained above, and in my last reply to ). Semi-rational Humans are not totally free, but relatively free-enough to become one of many determinants of evolving reality. 20th century Scientists, applying Classical Logic, were surprised to discover the Uncertainties & Incompleteness of the foundations of Reality. Quantum "mechanics" turned-out to have gaps in the chain of causation ("acausal"), that seem absurd & mysterious, unless we make allowances for the imperfections of heuristic Determinism. :smile:

Fuzzy logic is an approach to variable processing that allows for multiple possible truth values to be processed through the same variable. Fuzzy logic attempts to solve problems with an open, imprecise spectrum of data and heuristics that makes it possible to obtain an array of accurate conclusions.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fuzzy-logic.asp

Quantum Indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

So, we have that 'potentials' can be treated as being real, from your other sources; thus, the wave-function and the quantum fields are real, not just math tools/descriptions; They are sculpted by the All. — PoeticUniverse

Since "Real" for most folks means "material" or "physical", i prefer to speak of Potentials & Constructive Absences as "Ideal" or "meta-physical". That's because we don't know of their existence via our 5 senses. Instead, we infer their statistically possible existence via the sixth sense of Reason : the ability to fill gaps in knowledge with logical rules of prediction from known premises to probable conclusions.

Those projections into the future are not empirically real, but only theoretically & statistically probable. So they exist as immaterial mental models, alongside Unicorns & Utopias. That's why materialists reject Idealism, as illusory. Our models are indeed figments of imagination. So we can't distinguish fantasies from facts, except by philosophical & statistical reasoning to determine how likely they are.

So "The All", (or G*D, or Cosmic Potential, or BEING) are merely theoretical inferences from our experience with counter-intuitive (or mysterious) features of Reality, and gaps in our understanding of Physics. Quantum Fields & Mathematical Geometry are not real things, they are mental models of how the world might work if we could see Ideality with our third eye (imagination). Unfortunately, some of us take our theoretical (ideal) models as actual, based on wishful Faith instead of testing them with skeptical Reason.

All possible forms that the physical world can take was defined by the initial conditions of the BigBang. So, you could say that the reality we now experience was "sculpted" by The ALL. But, the fact that humans can imagine things-that-are-not-but-might-be is evidence that the program of evolution is doing a heuristic (trial & error) search of the field of possibilities established in the beginning. A Deterministic algorithm is perfect & complete, so would leave no gaps in its calculation. But a Heuristic procedure (like natural Evolution) only looks for "good enough" fitness, hence it omits a lot of not-good-enough candidates. So, some possibilities were left open, to be filled by human Will.

In their arguments about such Real vs Ideal notions as FreeWiil, most people assume that our world is the result of either a divine miracle (absolute perfection) or a natural gapless algorithm (deterministic). Both are top-down processes, with everything pre-destined. But our experience does not confirm that presumption. The world is far from perfect. Hence, whoever or whatever "sculpted" this work-of-art, was either imperfect, or intentionally allowed for novelty to emerge. Thus a heuristic program of evolution would be a bottom-up kind of self-creation.

That's why I view the world as a self-organizing program with only the basic Operating System (natural laws & initial conditions) established in the Singularity Seed. Therefore, a heuristic program for evolution could allow Possibility Space for creative human imagination (FreeWill) to alter the course of evolution in tiny incremental steps that gradually transform Nature into Culture. :cool:


People Are Really Bad At Probability, And This Study Shows How Easy It Is To Trick Us :
https://www.fastcompany.com/3061263/people-are-really-bad-at-probability-and-this-study-shows-how-easy-it-is-to-trick-us

What is the basic difference between determinative optimization, heuristic optimization :
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_basic_difference_between_determinative_optimization_heuristic_optimization_stochastic_optimization_and_robust_optimization_techniques

What is the difference between a heuristic and an algorithm? :
"What the algorithm does is precisely defined"
"A heuristic is still a kind of an algorithm, but one that will not explore all possible states of the problem, or will begin by exploring the most likely ones."
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2334225/what-is-the-difference-between-a-heuristic-and-an-algorithm

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D (or whatever label you prefer for the whole of which we are sentient parts).
BothAnd Blog Glossary

THIRD EYE IS NOT MYSTICAL, BUT IMAGINATIVE


PS__It's probably the heuristic (trial & error) procedure of evolution that makes it seem "absurd" to those who look at the trees (parts) and fail to see the forest (whole system). Reductionism is a good method for empirical Science, but not for hypothetical Philosophy. Therefore, when it's applied to subjective ideas instead of objective things, that logical method may result in reductio ad absurdum.
Absurd = illogical
Heuristic = fuzzy logic

The inevitable future of equilibrium symmetry carefully designs/forces the stable particles with properties that will produce the periodic table, molecules, even DNA. — PoeticUniverse

As you implied in a previous post, the universe has a "broken" symmetry. Perfect symmetry would not allow for change & positive evolution. Perhaps that imperfection of determination is what allows us to freely choose "which branch of a bifurcation to take". :cool:

In physics, symmetry breaking is a phenomenon in which (infinitesimally) small fluctuations acting on a system crossing a critical point decide the system's fate, by determining which branch of a bifurcation is taken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking

So now I have as much free will as there can be. Hurray! — PoeticUniverse

Yay! You have become a guided mission within the mostly random flux of natural causation. What makes the difference is Intention & Selection. :grin:

Since mechanistic models only consider the extrinsic force exerted on one part by another in a deterministic system, they overlook the spontaneous propagation and self-persistence of constraints that organize our world while leaving it open to further organization. ___Terrance Deacon — PoeticUniverse

Deacon put his finger on the crux of this FreeWiil debate. Those who hold a "mechanistic model" of the world are self-blinded to the Holistic & Organismic functions of a system with the creative internal "constraints" that we know as Natural Laws. Those limits on random freedom tend to guide the cause & effect chain in a pre-determined, non-accidental direction. The result of that internal guidance system is the patterns within randomness that we interpret as order & meaning. :nerd:

PS__Unfortunately, some of us go to the opposite extreme by creating a spiritualistic model of reality, in which souls can overcome the gravity of their body.

Kevin Giorbran had an idea, in ‘Everything Forever’, but he killed himself, so I can’t get any more out of him… — PoeticUniverse

I read Giorban's book several years ago, and it blew my mind. Sadly, he exercised his FreeWill with the ultimate personal choice : "to be, or not to be?" So he went on to explore that eternal state before he could break his ideas down for me. Consequently, much of the book went over my time-bound Something-Right-Now mind. Some of his interpretations of "Timelessness" seem to imply some kind metaphorical time-travel. That sounds like Deacon's Constitutive Absence. But I don't know if he meant for that block-time imagery to be taken literally. :smile:

Excerpts from reviews of Everything Forever :
"The past and the future are quantum potentials, and conscious beings are continually creating the most likely futures and the most likely, consistent pasts. Meaning arises as a result of the decoherence of these potential states."

"I particularly enjoyed the section on how the future helps arrange the present."

We see that the All had to employ the opposites of matter and anti-matter, which in addition to being mirror opposites have opposite electrical charge; so now we know that the All couldn't have done it with just one type of matter. We can surmise that other opposites were also of necessity, such as positive kinetic energy and negative potential energy. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. I envision the "splitting" of the BigBang Singularity as an ovum (egg) dividing. First one cell becomes two, and then two become four, thus the bifurcation continues doubling at an exponential rate. Each pair are twins, but opposite. And the tension between positive & negative poles creates minor differences, that eventually become significant enough to call them separate categories or species or organisms.

The result of this rapid doubling & opposing is the emergence of a complex multicellular universe with a variety of organizations, such as stars & galaxies & planets & living things. That creative polarization continues today, because it is necessary for change & evolution. Oppositions are dynamic, whether they attract or repel each other. So, we call those pulling or pushing relationships "forces" or "energy".

It's the internal tug-o-war that makes the world go around. But it also pulls things apart, which we call "entropy". That negative force would quickly dissolve all organizations of matter, if it were not for the opposing force that I call "Enformy" (the power to enform ; to organize). It's the self-organizing force that reductive scientists call "negentropy". But as a holistic philosopher, I prefer to focus on the positive.

For example, amid all this deterministic cause & effect -- due perhaps to an incidental swerving curve -- some looping effects bend back on themselves, creating positive feedback, and novel effects that never existed before. Thus oppositions are necessary for the creation of difference and for the "endless forms most beautiful" that Darwin extolled. In my thesis, I call that pushing & pulling creative force : EnFormAction. :nerd:

EXPONENTIAL CELLULAR DIVISION

I argue that agency, choice, and control are emergent, higher-level phenomena, — PoeticUniverse

Speaking of "Emergence" and other mysterious appearances. I just came across an article by Tom Siegfried of Science News, that may shed light on another controversial concept that we have discussed on this and other "Science vs Pseudoscience" threads. For instance, I often use the Aristotelian concept of "Potential" in my posts as reference to things that are "not yet actual", such as wavefunctions that are potential particles. He calls this "a new philosophical framework". The paper's authors propose that we "expand the definition of reality" to include things that have "not yet become actual". Hence, "These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence." They understand that it's a difficult concept to grasp for those with a Classical physical worldview.

However, a similar concept has been proposed by biologist & neuroscientist, Terrence Deacon, in his book Incomplete Nature. There, he introduces the notion of Constructive or Constitutive Absence, as a "state of things not yet realized". He suggests that is a "defining attribute of life and mind" as well as of "ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences". Deacon's Absence also seems to be similar to Aristotle's Potential.

Coincidentally, the Science News article says, “This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,” Which some posters will reflexively label as "bunk" or "category error". But another recent post on the Immaterialism thread linked to a novel idea from physicist Sean Carroll : Effective Field Theory. He refers to this field of Potential as more fundamental than a virtual Quantum Field, and labels it as the "underlying reality". Really???

I may get deeper into the spooky Power of Absence later in this thread about how the human Will could convert ideal Potential into real Actual. But, meanwhile, I'm aware that these cutting-edge scientific theories are making it harder to distinguish Science from Pseudoscience. Yet that's the price we pay for cutting reality down-to-the-bone and beyond. :nerd:


Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities :
three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/quantum-mysteries-dissolve-if-possibilities-are-realities

Constructive Absence : a form of causality dependent on specifically absent features and unrealized potentials

Effective Field Theory :
In physics, an effective field theory is a type of approximation, or effective theory, for an underlying physical theory,
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/651352

↪Gnomon
That :lol: is a "LOL" emoticon. – tears from laughing at your post, G. This :cry: is crying. :rofl: — 180 Proof

Yes. I know. I was just using poetic license. I'm not quite as stupid as your sophistry-mockery makes me out to be. But, then there is no empirical evidence for poetry either. :joke:

PS__This emoticon :joke: means "tongue in cheek", which means "ironic", or "I may be joking"..

↪Gnomon :lol: — 180 Proof

Come-on now! Big philosophers don't cry over spilled mockery :joke:

I argue that agency, choice, and control are emergent, higher-level phenomena,
Hope so!
I just moved my coffee so I can't knock it over. — PoeticUniverse

Smart move! Some advocates of Panpsychism imagine that all elements of reality are conscious agents. But my interpretation of "Universal Information" (ratios ; relationships) could be called "Evolutionary Panpsychism". In that case, "psyche -" refers to the mind-stuff (Logic : Memes) we now know as "Information" (meaning-to-Self & power-to-inform non-self), not as wandering souls. This interpretation makes Reincarnation and Karma unlikely, but useful as what-if metaphorical models to mull over.

Moreover, the current peak of emergent agency is the self-&-other-control of homo sapiens. Which is limited to internal self-control, plus the intention to control external non-self via natural & technological extensions of body and senses. For example : You imagined a future state in which your elbow knocked the cup over, then exercised your statistical freedom to move your hand in order to change that possible future state from probable mess (90%) to less likely (10%). :smile:

Emergence :
Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, causing a phase-change from one logical category to another.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

PS__If the esoteric topic of Emergence, Phase Transitions, and Quantum Leaps interests you, PM me for a link to a brief idiosyncratic model of Evolution by transitional stages.

Humans design in top-down waterfall phases,
but Evolution emerges in bottom-up stairstep
stages of development
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws
0.Infinity :
Eternal Logos

OK 'God' is not, but the Eternal Basis may have a way of coming up with something workable although not ideal, which we have to figure out, which may help out with the 'free' quandary of free will. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Several philosophers, over the ages, have concluded that, in order for anything temporal & temporary to exist, something stable & eternal must exist unconditionally. Ironically, for the Greeks, the notion of conditional space-time came long before we obtained evidence that even the physical universe had a beginning, and will eventually fade away into non-being. For example, Heraclitus ("panta rhei") referred to this ultimate perfection as the "'Absolute' -- the all-inclusive whole or unity that underlies everything -- exists in the unity of opposites, first as a 'Being", and secondly as a constant 'Becoming'" (Philosophy Now, Dec - Jan). Like Plato and Aristotle, Heraclitus didn't refer to this "eternal" essence as a humanoid god, but as an abstract principle (law of laws) of existence.

In my own Enformationism thesis, I came to the same conclusion, but from a different direction. The weird sciences of Quantum & Information, were begging for an Absolute Ground to make sense of the counter-intuitive aspects of "the most successful theory ever formulated". So, borrowing from those ancient intuitions, I began to refer to my "Ground of all Being", with the traditional terms : BEING, LOGOS, and Universal Substance. However, in deference to the most common tradition, I also added the ambiguous label "G*D", to more completely cover the multi-faceted role of what the Information-based thesis proposed : "the Enformer", or "the Programmer". I even equate the "Absolute" with Eastern notions of impersonal "Brahma", and abstract "Tao". Like Infinity & Zero, these absolutes encompass every possibility. So, a simple non-theological description might be just plain "ALL". And a worldview based on that integrated & unified principle is known as Holism.

Heraclitus, also anticipated the Eastern notion of Yin-Yang in his concept of "unity of opposites". This is a way of reconciling all dichotomies by merging antithetical polar opposites into a synthesis of Unity (the One). For example, Hegel, lecturing on Heraclitus explained his notion of Unified Identity : "Subjectivity is the opposite of Objectivity, and since each is the 'other' of the 'other". He went on to assert that "thought itself is the true Being". And in the 21st century, we could substitute shape-shifting "Enformation" (energy / matter + life / mind) as a modern version of ancient Logos and Tao. Like abstract Energy, we don't know what BEING is, only what it does : cause beings & things to exist, and to desist.

Since "Absolute BEING" encompasses all possibilities, including Positive & Negative, Freedom & Determinism, the Yin-Yang notion of Freedom within Determinism could suggest a solution to the "free quandary" in a cause & effect world. Randomness explores all possibilities, but Selection chooses what becomes Actual. :nerd:

UNITY OF OPPOSITES INCLUDES
FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM

Bingo. I've spent days in another thread providing a LITANY of scientific studies that show there is no evidence that suggests this isn't the case. — Garrett Travers

I assume that "this" refers to the poetic & religious notions of human autonomy & moral agency that are rejected as wishful thinking by some philosophical & scientific thinkers. But, their reductionist policy regarding Nature-studies tends to exclude such holistic phenomena as the feeling of personal freedom. They don't find such evidence, because they are not looking for it. So, I don't know where you found a "litany of scientific studies" in favor of freedom from determinism.

However, the book that inspired this revival of the FreeWill thread, does present a plethora of scientific evidence against human autonomy. Since their minds are already made-up though, few posters here have read the referenced book, or even the book review on my blog. But there is one side-note in the review that links to an article by Scientific American magazine blogger John Horgan : Free Will is Real. There, he interprets the scientific evidence, if not proving moral freedom, at least not proving that causal immunity is impossible.

So, it's usually left up to theoretical philosophers to prove by argumentation, not evidence, that humans have evolved some independence from Deterministic natural laws. In the article, Horgan confesses that "I can live without God, but I need free will. Without free will life makes no sense, it lacks meaning. So I’m always on the lookout for strong, clear arguments for free will." That's why he interviewed a philosopher who has made a study of scientific evidence, and concluded that "Free Will is Real". Which is the title of his book linked below. :smile:


Free Will Is Real :
Philosopher Christian List argues against reductionism and determinism in accounts of the mind
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/free-will-is-real/

Why Free Will Is Real :
List makes the case that free will is real by responding to the three key objections typically proposed in the philosophical literature through the central insight that free will should be considered a ‘higher-level’ psychological phenomenon.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2020/04/03/long-read-review-why-free-will-is-real-by-christian-list/

It is often presumed that intellectuals have little or no political power. — Olivier5

It's not the bookish intellectuals like Marx & Engels that the CIA is worried about, but those sword-wielding activists, like Lenin & Stalin, who are motivated by Utopian visions to follow Marx's advice. "The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.” Apparently, the CIA reads PoMo as a left-wing manifesto, to be implemented as Socialism or Communism. :smile:

Isn't there a branch of philosophy concerned with ignorance and what we don't actually know? Epistemology covers knowledge, but what covers the stuff we tend to just assume we know, but in fact don't? — TiredThinker

I don't know. It's a mystery to me. :smile:

Ignorance is the not knowing that opens us up to philosophical wonder, to scientific discovery, to human wisdom."
https://ignorance.medicine.arizona.edu/about-us/what-ignorance

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science.”
― Albert Einstein, The World As I See It

Typically, mystery does not receive much attention in philosophy. Although Heidegger and other key philosophers have made a place for mystery in philosophy, ...
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739134344/Mystery-in-Philosophy-An-Invocation-of-Pseudo-Dionysius

'Free won't' is just the usual subconscious neural 'voting' that comes from another part of the brain will than did the initial proposal. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but that other "part" of the brain is not a physical Location ; it's the holistic governing Function we call the "Conscience" or the "Super-Ego". It's function is not to control body parts, but to guide the whole system of parts known as the "Self" or "the captain of my soul". And its commands are the only "votes" that we are consciously aware of. So the subconscious crew has no choice but to say "aye, aye sir". :halo:

Would a non determined spontaneous will choice count as free? — PoeticUniverse

Yes. That's what I referred to in the blog review as "Un-scripted". The analogy is to actors improvising their character's lines & gestures within the constraints of the director's general plot. I view that as an example of Freedom within Determinism. Nature sets the stage and establishes a general direction for evolution, but intelligent Actors (free agents) are able to do their own character development. As in life, the result is often absurd & comedic, due to the lack of pre-determined structure. :smile:

BTW, in your videos, are any of your characters, spouting sagely aphorisms, free to create their own dialog? Or are you a tyrannical deterministic creator? :joke:


“The mind is a kind of theatre . . .” ___David Hume
Unlike stage actors, with a script, freewill agents are ad-libbing their roles, by reacting to the changing scenario. The playwright merely places characters in a situation, then allows them to improvise and extemporize, based on each character’s individual traits. We learn bits about the other characters, and about the plot, by inter-acting. The playwright has left us free to create a unique role for ourselves.
BothAnd Blog, post 122

Improvisational theatre, often called improvisation or improv, is the form of theatre, often comedy, in which most or all of what is performed is unplanned or unscripted: created spontaneously by the performers. Wikipedia

Great work. — Garrett Travers

Thanks. But you might not agree with some of my Poetic & Philosophical speculations on controversial topics such as Consciousness & Free Will. :smile:

A real example strong emergence is needed, if there is one. The liquidity is because the tiny hydrogen atoms roll around and also roam between (as ions) the much larger oxygen atoms. — PoeticUniverse

OK. I'll admit that "wetness" is a qualia, not a quanta. But "liquidity" is a measurable physical difference (e.g. viscosity) between gas, solid & liquid forms of H2O. Maybe that's why Fish don't know they are wet : their scientists haven't studied their environment philosophically in terms of Qualia. :joke:

Emergence: A unifying theme for 21st century science :
"Examples of emergent behavior are everywhere around us, from birds flocking, fireflies synchronizing, ants colonizing, fish schooling, individuals self-organizing into neighborhoods in cities – all with no leaders or central control – to the Big Bang, the formation of galaxies and stars and planets, . . ."
https://medium.com/sfi-30-foundations-frontiers/emergence-a-unifying-theme-for-21st-century-science-4324ac0f951e
Note 1 -- this article is from the Santa Fe Institute for Complexity Science : dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of "complex adaptive systems", including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. This is where I get a lot of my information about cutting edge science, that might not be common knowledge.

Note 2 -- In my understanding, Consciousness is an emergent quality of the complex adaptive system we call the "Brain". You can't measure it physically, but you infer it rationally. Some scientists tried to measure Einstein's brain to see what made him so smart. But, that was futile, like trying to measure the weight of a Soul.