That does suggest a sort of anthropomorphism of the environment, conscious acts carried out by the environment against life forms. But for what reason? Why would the environment act this way? — Brett
So I insist that you tell us what the unit measurement of complexity is, and how complex humans are in this measurement scale, and how complex are particular societies, football teams, and those damned hydroelectrics. — god must be atheist
Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are. — god must be atheist
It’s just this tiny percentage we call ‘life’ that took a chance to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond the level of a chemical reaction. — Possibility
This is interesting, because I don’t agree that chemistry has done the creating here. This is what I mean by the difference between creating and evolving. Chemistry has evolved, but it didn’t create - not by itself, anyway — Possibility
I’m working towards a third option that incorporates both processes. It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence. — Possibility
Unfortunately, although I'd love to believe it, social entities, despite appearing distinct from the individual, is still structured around the basic body plan of an animal, the head being the most visible of all body-parts in social entities e.g. president, prime minister, king, emperor, etc. If social entities were more complex than humans then we'd see something like consciousness in it - a true complexity. — TheMadFool
Can you indicate at what stage in time, in relation to the evolution of life, this happened.
Creativity/intelligence existed before evolution began, then at some point the process of evolution began. Is that how you see it? — Brett
Natural selection as proposed by Darwin has no effect on non-life. — Possibility
What do you mean by ‘non-life’? — Brett
If you’d like to give me the unit of measurement behind this statement then we could work from there. — Brett
Complexity is not a measurable quantity. Therefore you can't say this is more complex or that is more complex, as there is no standard to measure complexity with. — god must be atheist
This what you stated and called as obvious, is actually a false sentence and a false proposition. Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are. — god must be atheist
Is a dog's consciousness simpler or more complex than a human's? How so? — ZhouBoTong
But I need to clarify whether by ‘evolution’ you mean ‘how life evolved’, or ‘Darwin’s theory of natural selection’. Natural selection as proposed by Darwin has no effect on non-life. Evolution, as I understand it, began at the proposed ‘Big Bang’, and is inclusive of natural selection as a key ‘limiting’ factor. — Possibility
I see ‘evolution’ and Darwinism as the same thing. — Brett
I know that ‘non- life’ is unable to pass on genes and therefore become part of the process of natural selection. But the fact that the earth, among other planets, was in the ideal position from the sun to begin to propagate life which began the evolution of life forms is part of that whole idea of having the best characteristics to survive and thrive. Nature favours traits or characteristics that are beneficial in a specific environment. It seems to me that was the case with the planet earth. — Brett
Edit: though on reflection I see a weakness there about favouring traits that are beneficial, beneficial to what and how? — Brett
If that’s the case, then what is the rest of the universe there for? — Possibility
I think that humans also evolve into something at least marginally more complex than themselves all the time: other humans. — Possibility
So I’m guessing then that from your perspective everything has a purpose, or at least is part of a whole with meaning. — Brett
If this idea that simplicity evolves into complexity is true then what explains the quite obvious fact that humans when engaged in creative acts can never produce something more complex than humans themselves? — TheMadFool
It is Darwin’s natural selection that assumes a purpose to everything, not me — Possibility
So then, bear with me,
1) simplicity does evolve into complexity; humans evolve into more complex humans
2) the creative impetus is behind evolution
3) evolution is not about creating
4) humans don’t create more complex things, they evolve, which is not the same as creating. They’re tools of creation.
5) is creating a simple thing or complex thing? — Brett
I assume a purpose in actions required to survive. But a purpose for evolution, no, because it’s dependent on random mutations. — Brett
I’m trying to decide if the planet earth is or is not part of evolution. Is that fragment that was part of the Big Bang not like a seed that requires ideal conditions to thrive? Many other planets/seeds came to rest on their orbit in a place that was not congenial to their growth. Of course that may have already happened, they thrived and died. But either way it was all random. Is the earth an example of survival of the fittest? — Brett
Then why make this statement? — Brett
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.