Personally, I am not convinced that everything happens through random mutations, natural selection and chance, but I am aware that my view is probably a minority view on this site. I do think that the dominant paradigm of our times wishes to reduce ideas like transcendence to the fabrications of ego psychology. At times, I feel so disheartened that I wish to give up any pursuit of exploration. However, on a deeper level, I do believe that we are more than just aspects and subjects arising from matter, and that the development of consciousness has some importance in the grand scheme of life, which goes beyond mere coincidental occurrences.

Personally, I am not convinced that everything happens through random mutations, natural selection and chance, but I am aware that my view is probably a minority view on this site. — Jack Cummins

Thanks Jack!

Indeed, I share your thoughts. There is much common sense thinking that goes along with those truncated models of anthropy.

We know that there is a certain amount of randomness and uncertainty as uncovered in the physical world through QM, mathematical structures, and so on. However, this is distinct from there being complete chaos...

Natural selection is not random, nor chance.

Not as terse as Banno, but here goes ...

An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias, or illusion; nature is not fine-tuned for us, rather we fine-tune our concepts and models to nature.

Consciousness does not arise from matter.

Subjects do not arise from matter either.

Transcendence (Spinoza, Deleuze) makes as much sense as north of the north pole or disembodied self.

David Deutsch proposes that, in the grand scheme of things, the significance of human beings shows whenever we create knowledge (i.e. falsifiable, provisional, theories – good explanations – of how physical transformations of states-of-affairs (can be caused to) happen) and wonder at – revere – 'the grand scheme of things'.

Chaos is not randomness.

Natural selection is not random, nor chance. — Banno

Please share your theory. How does your statement square with random mutation and genetic accident?

An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias, or illusion; nature is not fine-tuned for us, rather we fine-tune our concepts and models to nature. — 180 Proof

180!

How is that..., can you provide examples to your supposition? I like your notion of some sort of illusionary element to the conscious mind (abstractness, metaphysical structure, unexplained phenomena, perception of Time, and the like), which is one argument. But the other part of fine-tuning is intriguing. How is this fine tuning done by the human mind?

Don't forget to include something v. nothing in your response. Meaning, include inanimate physical matter in your thought process. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution. We can ferret all that stuff out later based upon your reply...

Consciousness does not arise from matter.

Subjects do not arise from matter either. — 180 Proof

What does consciousness/subjects arise from?

Chaos is not randomness. — 180 Proof

Of course it's not. No exceptions taken.

How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such complexity? — 3017amen

Scientists used to focus on the Random Mutation element of Darwinian Evolution, probably because it eliminated any notion of divine creation. But, especially since the Information Age, more attention has been paid to Natural Selection, as a means to choose from among the novel structures produced by accidental aggregation. Now scientists are using the basic principles of Evolution to design systems that will try millions of options virtually, in order to select the one that produces the best fit for their stated purposes.

Those programmers must begin by establishing Initial Conditions as a starting point that seems to be close to the desired outcome, Then they add Rules & Standards (laws) to guide the program in the right direction. But the actual processing of that setup information is basically a random sequence of trials & errors, and re-tries, as the imperfections are weeded-out. The final solutions are often unexpected, and somewhat complex, but tend to be less complicated than some of the rejected options. So, the goal is not complexity per se, but optimum organization of components. The Intelligence of the programmer is encoded into the program to serve as a value system to guide the selection mechanism. The selection criteria (choices) are able to extract functional organization from dysfunctional disorder.

If you think of Natural Evolution as a program, with pre-set limits (conditions), and a means to generate a variety of novel solutions (random mutations), plus design criteria (laws) to define the best fit for a particular role (niche) in the ecosystem, then the notion of a Programmer, with values & intentions begins to make sense. You were correct to imply that Randomness typically results in disorder & entropy. So, some design intent is necessary to produce functional organization & fruitful conducive complexity. Therefore, we can guess that the path from simple beginnings (raw matter) could eventually lead to organized complexity (brains), and thence to novel functions, such as self-directed Minds.

The Human Mind is not a concrete thing, but the abstract function of the most complex system (brain) in the universe. The neural network may even utilize evolutionary principles to optimize control of the body. And a mental self-image provides the necessary distinction between self & other. So, how could genetic accidents and random mutations explain such functional complexity? The world system (nature) must have been designed (programmed) to work toward that end : The Anthropic Principle. But, the evolutionary program hasn't halted yet. So the ultimate output may require even further refinement, and remains to be computed. :nerd:


Evolutionary Computation :
The method: evolutionary computation. EC is a computational intelligence technique inspired from natural evolution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/evolutionary-computation

You've demonstrated countless times, my friend, that you're too unstable, ignorant or disingenuous to understand anything that challenges your dogmatic woo. So let's not and say we did. :victory:

180!

I'm confused. Why did you even comment then. Did you not expect to get questioned?

Are you trolling my threads again? Are you an angry atheist?

I will be copying the moderator's on your posts. (Here we go again with the angry Atheist routine :joke: )

The world system (nature) must have been designed (programmed) to work toward that end : The Anthropic Principle. — Gnomon

Gnomon!

I agree with this. Using logic, it would be not that much different than making the synthetic a priori judgement, which is used in physics that: all events must have a cause! It drives proposition's that can be tested.

Thank you, I will ponder that which you wrote and reply soon!

I'm confused. — 3017amen

Poor thing, we know. :sweat:

Did you not expect to get questioned?

Sure did. Not from you, though, since it's all gibberish and woo-sy babytalk from you and never any relevant, or non-rhetorical, questions. Can you even tell the difference between a question and a pseudo-question, 3017? :roll:

Are you trolling my threads again?

Of course not. Chatting with a troll isn't trolling, troll.

Btw, I was responding to @Jack Cummins. My bad. But no need for you to respond to me given our extensive and tediously one-sided history.

Are you an angry atheist?

I'm a freaky freethinker, son.

I will be copying the moderator's on your posts.

:yikes:

You don't want to learn. It threatens your Christian values.

7. Is evolution a random process?
Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.
Life's Grand Design Learn More
Life's Grand Design

https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/yeast-study-suggests-genetics-are-random-but-evolution-is-not-20140911/
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium/a/hardy-weinberg-mechanisms-of-evolution

How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such complexity? — 3017amen

Scientists used to focus on the Random Mutation element of Darwinian Evolution, probably because it eliminated any notion of divine creation. But, especially since the Information Age, more attention has been paid to Natural Selection, as a means to choose from among the novel structures produced by accidental aggregation. Now scientists are using the basic principles of Evolution to design systems that will try millions of options virtually, in order to select the one that produces the best fit for their stated purposes.

Those programmers must begin by establishing Initial Conditions as a starting point that seems to be close to the desired outcome, Then they add Rules & Standards (laws) to guide the program in the right direction. But the actual processing of that setup information is basically a random sequence of trials & errors, and re-tries, as the imperfections are weeded-out. The final solutions are often unexpected, and somewhat complex, but tend to be less complicated than some of the rejected options. So, the goal is not complexity per se, but optimum organization of components. The Intelligence of the programmer is encoded into the program to serve as a value system to guide the selection mechanism. The selection criteria (choices) are able to extract functional organization from dysfunctional disorder.

If you think of Natural Evolution as a program, with pre-set limits (conditions), and a means to generate a variety of novel solutions (random mutations), plus design criteria (laws) to define the best fit for a particular role (niche) in the ecosystem, then the notion of a Programmer, with values & intentions begins to make sense. You were correct to imply that Randomness typically results in disorder & entropy. So, some design intent is necessary to produce functional organization & fruitful conducive complexity. Therefore, we can guess that the path from simple beginnings (raw matter) could eventually lead to organized complexity (brains), and thence to novel functions, such as self-directed Minds.

The Human Mind is not a concrete thing, but the abstract function of the most complex system (brain) in the universe. The neural network may even utilize evolutionary principles to optimize control of the body. And a mental self-image provides the necessary distinction between self & other. So, how could genetic accidents and random mutations explain such functional complexity? The world system (nature) must have been designed (programmed) to work toward that end : The Anthropic Principle. But, the evolutionary program hasn't halted yet. So the ultimate output may require even further refinement, and remains to be computed. :nerd:


Evolutionary Computation :
The method: evolutionary computation. EC is a computational intelligence technique inspired from natural evolution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/evolutionary-computation

Chaos is not randomness. — 180 Proof

That's a fact, Jack! And, as Banno said : "Natural selection is not random, nor chance". The Greeks vaguely understood that Nature was characterized by two opposing forces : Good vs Evil, Or, what we now call constructive Energy and destructive Entropy, or future-oriented Positive vs dead-end Negative. So Plato proposed a scenario -- based on intuition, not empirical science -- in which orderly Cosmos was organized from disorderly Chaos by divine Logos (reason). But, modern Chaos theorists have found that in every disorganized system there is a "seed" of hidden order. So, it shouldn't be surprising that the random element of evolution is offset to some degree by the non-random action of Natural Selection. Hence, it's the logical act of "selection" that extracts Order from within Disorder, and Cosmos from Chaos. That's also why Banno's terse epigram is a true statement. And your equally brief assertion is correct, but incomplete.

Therefore, we -- you and I, as philosophers -- need to complicate those succinct quips by asking "why"?. Why, and How, did increasing degrees of organization emerge from an inherently disorganized process of un-guided roiling atoms? Indeed, how could our organic world arise from such an un-promising beginning as a cosmic explosion (big bang) in nothingness?. As in the OP, how could Mind emerge from dumb Matter? Logically, there are only two explanations : A> the familiar creative system of laws we call "Nature" has always existed, eternally. Or B> some other mysterious creative Cosmic "entity" has always existed. So, which is the hidden creative "organizing force" in Nature that makes your statement a fact?

Since the Enlightenment, a hidden divinity is not a permissible solution to any mystery. So answer <A> is the preferred choice for most Materialists : matter naturally contains the hidden seeds of organization, and it has always repeatedly created baby universes for no particular reason. In which case, the hypothetical Multiverse is given most of the basic characteristics of a God : eternal, infinite, creative. But not the most important features for emerging order : Intelligence & Intention. Hence, the Multiverse creates its offspring via a blind, stochastic process of one accident after another, with no teleological direction at all. This seems to go counter to your assertion that Chaos is not really random, but has some hidden inherent tendency-toward-meaningful-order, that we know only by inference. Also to Banno's denial that evolution is a game of Chance. So, how does future-oriented Probablity arise from dis-oriented Randomness? Or how do those opposites harmonize? And how does the "Arrow of Time" emerge from directionless haphazard Change?

Considering those open questions, the OP query was not answered, but merely brushed-away with mis-direction. Wherefore then, the did the ordering and organizing principles of Nature originate? To say "they are innate", suggests a humanoid Mother Nature fostering and disciplining her beloved children. But the typical picture of the non-motherly Multiverse has no explanation for the emergence of Love & Hate, or any other "Intentional Stance" (consciousness) from the blind, random "confluence of atoms". If Nature is "not a game of chance", then it must be guided by some teleological intention. It's as if, Mother Nature nurtures aspirations for the future of her children. So, how do you explain why "Chaos is not Random"? Is somebody cheating? :joke:


Anthropic principle :
The anthropic principle is a group of principles attempting to determine how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in a particular type of universe to start with.[1] In other words, scientific observation of the universe would not even be possible if the laws of the universe had been incompatible with the development of sentient life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the notion that the universe seems to be fine tuned.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Hidden Order :
How Adaptation Builds Complexity
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183954.Hidden_Order

Hidden Order in Chaos :
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/discover-the-hidden-order-in-chaos/

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative agency that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : "The creative impulse of Evolution"; "the power to enform"; "Logos"; "Directed Change".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Those programmers must begin by establishing Initial Conditions as a starting point that seems to be close to the desired outcome — Gnomon

Gnomon!

There's a whole lot to discuss but let me just start there. (I want to explore more from your post.)

Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.

But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd.

So your notion of "desired outcome" has indeed some level of logical truth to it... .

"The fanatical atheists, are like [prisoners] who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres." Albert Einstein

:up: Good thing I'm a pandeist everyday except on Spinozadays when I rest on acosmism just like old Uncle Albert (who, being a physicist and not a philosopher, mistook acosmism for "pantheism").

So, how do you explain why "Chaos is not Random"? — Gnomon

Nonlinear dynamic systems are deterministic.

Is somebody cheating? :joke:

Charitably, G, you've been playing tennis without a net for a long ... long ... long ... time. :clap:

Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity — 3017amen

Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind — 3017amen

Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans — 3017amen

You've outdone yourself! Such profound simplicity indicates you've done your homework well. A+ for you 3017amen.

The issue it seems is not whether the ends [Mind, Humans, Organized Complexity] can come about with/without an intelligent agency (god/creator) working on the beginnings [Matter, Primates, Initial conditions] but whether the two possibilities - a god-created universe vs a universe without one - can be distinguished from each other in the first place!

See: Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox

If nature+g/G can't be distinguished from nature-g/G – according to every theistic g/G religious tradition extant they must be distinguishable (re: "revealed") – then, at the very least, Occam's Razor cuts your preacher's lying throat.

If nature+g/G can't be distinguished from nature-g/G – according to every theistic g/G religious tradition extant they must be distinguishable (re: "revealed") – then, at the very least, Occam's Razor cuts your preacher's lying throat. — 180 Proof

You're correct of course 180 Proof - Occam's Razor would neatly consign the god hypothesis to the scrap heap - but...I've been meaning to relate a story to anyone who cares to listen. It goes like this: On a cool, starlit night John was looking out the window of his apartment at the nearby mountains. He could make out a row of streetlights in the distance, all in a perfect straight, extending from one side of the mountain to another. He thought to himself, that road the streetlights are for must be pretty straight. He went to sleep on that thought and soon forgot all about it.

A couple of months later, John had to make a trip to another city and that meant he had to take the same road he saw earlier. He did and what did he discover? The road was winding, hugging the natural curves of the mountain. The straight line of streetlights was an illusion. Moral of the story: It's complicated. So much for Occam's Razor!

Wtf :confused:

Wtf :confused: — 180 Proof

:lol:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H. L. Mencken

↪180 Proof

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
— H. L. Mencken — TheMadFool

"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another." ~Ambrose Bierce

"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another." ~Ambrose Bierce — 180 Proof

Not impossible but truth be told, Occam's razor ain't about the truth is it? It's got more to do with how sleek and easy to use a theory/hypothesis is - the idea being to avoid clunky hypotheses/theories. Put simply, Occam's razor is more about convenience and aesthetics (to a certain degree) than the truth and H. L. Mencken is referring to the latter. As you said a few days ago, "my two bitcoins worth." I quote you too. :grin:

"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another." ~Ambrose Bierce — 180 Proof

This has now been included in my quotation collection :up: Thanks a megaton!

The issue it seems is not whether the ends [Mind, Humans, Organized Complexity] can come about with/without an intelligent agency (god/creator) working on the beginnings [Matter, Primates, Initial conditions] but whether the two possibilities - a god-created universe vs a universe without one - can be distinguished from each other in the first place! — TheMadFool

Tmf!

Sure. Hence my view:

Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.

But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd.

Tmf!

Sure. Hence my view:

Evolution that depends on random mutations, genetic accidents, and natural selection requires complex initial conditions. This so-called evolutionary argument depends on nature being able to select from a collection of similar competing individuals.

But, when it comes to the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life there is no ensemble of competitors. The laws and initial conditions are unique to our universe. If it's the case that the existence of Life requires the laws of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe to be fine-tuned with high-precision and complexity, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is far from absurd. — 3017amen

I think we need to be as cautious as we should be open-minded about this.

Cautious because beliefs - theism included - have consequences that permeate all aspects of life and living.

Open-minded because we neither can, nor can afford to, disregard the possibility of a creator-deity. That said, what we discover might not match up to our expectations and that would be liking killing a dragon to save a princess only to find out you don't like the princess at all (the game's not worth the candle).

think we need to be as cautious as we should be open-minded about this.

Cautious because beliefs - theism included - have consequences that permeate all aspects of life and living. — TheMadFool

Sure Tmf!

Feel free to embellish in that reasoning. Thanks for your thoughts!

Sure Tmf!

Feel free to embellish in that reasoning. Thanks for your thoughts! — 3017amen

By the way, a case can be made that if god doesn't exist, intelligence and even consciousness has to be/could be an illusion. After all, if pure random chance can produce wonders (universe, life) that some sections of the population believe could only have been the handiwork of a conscious intelligence (god) - the two can't be told apart - it follows, right?, that conscious intelligence and unconscious non-intelligence are indistinguishable and Leibniz claimed the identity of indiscernibles. :smile: So, is consciousness an illusion? Daniel Dennett should take a look at this argument.