Randomness generates new possibilities which natural selection can keep or reject. — Unseen
Natural selection keeps or rejects? Like, mother nature, a conscious being, keeps or rejects something? But you don't really mean it, it's a figure of speech, right? — Henri
There is no other deciding factor to "random universe" than "randomness". A combination of various random elements, which some men decided to group and label nature, doesn't reject or keep anything. It's all, ultimately, random event. In such world, when something exists, it's random existence. When something dies, it's random death. And that's all it is. The problem is, probability that you exist through, ultimately, a random event, is mathematical or absolute 0%. — Henri
But the universe is a mix of lawful activity and randomness. No getting around that.
The universe has no purpose whatsoever and a life has only the purpose you give it. — Unseen
An event that leaves an impression on someone needs to be parsed in terms of what such an impression consists of and what those things are themselves existentially dependent upon.
Some impressions are left in a fluent listener by hurtful language use of a fluent speaker. Those impressions are existentially dependent upon language use. Such experience cannot be had by a language less creature, let alone an amoeba.
— creativesoul
I understand what you’re saying here, and I do agree - however if we’re trying to get to an understanding of what consciousness is and how it emerges or evolves/develops, then exploring it (or experience) from the top down, so to speak, is a bit like trying to understand algebra by reading an advanced level university textbook on the subject, starting with the final chapter. It might be possible to eventually work it out, but that’s gotta be one of the most difficult and convoluted ways to do it, in my view. — Possibility
To parse an impression left on someone at such a complex level of experiencing without grasping what happens at the most basic level of ‘someone’ (however you may interpret this) during the simplest ‘experience’ (event that leaves an impression) is going to be guesswork at best.
I say that - at a bare minimum - all experience takes a creature to whom the experience is meaningful. In short, all experience consists of and/or requires thought/belief about what's happening.
— creativesoul
Not necessarily. If we go back to the example of bacteria chemotaxing towards a chemical gradient, the experience of receiving the chemical gradient stimulus would have to be ‘meaningful’ to the bacteria in order for it to respond in this way, even without thought/belief about what’s happening. The event leaves an impression because the bacteria expends energy (an irreversible process) in changing its movement action according to two-dimensional information received: relating a chemical stimulus to direction. — Possibility
But the universe is a mix of lawful activity and randomness. No getting around that.
The universe has no purpose whatsoever and a life has only the purpose you give it.
— Unseen
Cosmic sorcerer and magic aside (you look like you’re having fun here), what if there were more lawful activity and less randomness than we currently realise? What if the purpose we think we are choosing to give our life actually stems from laws that we have yet to discover because they require a broader awareness of the universe than we currently have? — Possibility
In order for a creature to relate a chemical stimulus to direction it has to make a connection, draw an association/correlation between the two. Amoebas cannot do this. They have no notion of direction. They have no notions at all. Talking about what they can experience requires the strongest possible justificatory ground. — creativesoul
I'm just curious here. The "not necessarily" part above... are you going to argue/reject the criterion I've put forth based upon possible world semantics and/or modality(necessity/contingency)?
You realize that it does not follow from the fact that one has imagined that Donald Trump is not the president, that Donald Trump is not the president.
The criterion aspect needs to be discussed more. — creativesoul
I’m not going to conclusively prove experience in order to disprove your assumptions about amoeba and bacteria... — Possibility
It helps in this discussion to be mindful of anthropocentric assumptions and language, so we don’t seal off areas without searching them first. To be meaningful is to have an important or worthwhile quality. No thought/belief about ‘what’s happening’ is necessary. — Possibility
But the universe is a mix of lawful activity and randomness. — Unseen
But the universe is a mix of lawful activity and randomness.
— Unseen
What you call "lawful activity" would be a collection of randomly created random laws, ultimately, randomness. Statistically, it is more probable by the order of magnitude that you are insane and don't know the extent of it, than that you came into existence through, ultimately, randomness (including randomly created random laws). — Henri
What do you mean by "would be"? — Unseen
What do you mean by "would be"?
— Unseen
I meant - it would be if this is random-based reality.
In that sense, regarding your ethical question, one from the OP I guess, in random-based reality everything exists and ceases to exist, ultimately, randomly. There are no principles of survival that govern such reality. So there is no need to be puzzled why we would have this or that. We would have it just because. And it would be to our advantage or disadvantage just because. Like some presumably failed species, in evolution story, that randomly got some attributes which put them on the path to extinction.
Now, if you see that this is a purpose-based reality, question becomes, "Why did God give us consciousness?" You don't ask that question because you assume there is no God, but that's absolutely illogical assumption. — Henri
To be meaningful is to be meaningful to a creature. Current convention shows that all theories of meaning presuppose symbolism. That presupposes something to become sign/symbol, something to become symbolized/significant, and a creature capable of drawing a correlation between the two.<-------------that is thought/belief formation. The content of the correlation exists in it's entirety prior to becoming part of the correlation.
So, while we ought take care in our discrimination between candidates, we must take care to not redefine common terms as a means to support our thought/belief.
You are wanting me to agree to a criterion for experience that does not include thought/belief.
I cannot. — creativesoul
To say that bacteria use trial and error is to impute/imply intention that is devoid of agency. Bayesian reasoning requires quite a bit more complexity in thought/belief than such simple cellular structures facilitate and/or will allow.
Flower petals tumble through the air at times. Other times they glide. Some things exhibit more than one behavioural pattern. It does not follow from that and that alone that they are engaged in trial and error activities.
Bacteria? — creativesoul
I don’t believe I’m redefining the term, rather highlighting one particular dictionary definition of meaningful that suggests ‘current convention’ may be limiting our understanding of the topic in favour of anthropocentrism. It wouldn’t be the first time.
I agree that meaning presupposes both a sign and what it signifies. But in my view the creature need not have sufficient awareness to correlate between the sign and what it signifies for the creature in order for the sign to be meaningful to the creature. — Possibility
Avoiding anthropomorphism is imperative on my view, and that is not an easy task. In order to avoid attributing human qualities, features, and traits to non-human creatures we must be able to compare/contrast between human qualities, features, and traits and non-human. Without getting too far into the details yet, in this discussion we're talking about the differences between human experience and non-human experience.
To do this, we must know what human experience consists of and/or is existentially dependent upon. We must have some basic understanding of human experience. Once that criterion is established to our satisfaction, we must then assess whether or not the candidate under consideration has what it takes. — creativesoul
First I have to clarify that I’m talking about anthropocentrism, rather than anthropomorphism, because I think the distinction is important before we continue. By anthropocentrism, I’m referring to the tendency to distinguish humans (us) as separate from non-humans (them). This leads to a difference in our terminology for qualities, features and traits that blinds us to what may be common to both/and - particularly when it comes to experience and the development of thought/belief. Recognising primitive pre-cursors to thought/belief without labelling them as such is tricky business when you have ‘human experience’ and all our related features and traits up on a pedestal.
You say that you typically reject dichotomies - I’m proposing we reject the human/non-human dichotomy for the purpose of this discussion. This means we either we embrace/forgive anthropomorphism (and I understand your resistance), OR we abandon ‘human’ as a distinct category (along with all its anthropocentric terms). I find there is very little common terminology available to explore the gradual development of experience and consciousness between the two.
In my view, it’s more important in this discussion to talk about the similarities and development of ALL experience: both human and non-human. — Possibility
In my view, it’s more important in this discussion to talk about the similarities and development of ALL experience: both human and non-human. — Possibility
It refers to predictable and reliable regularity in how things in the world and universe behave. — Unseen
I do think the universe is law driven, but I mean it more literally, in the sense that I think it is will-driven. — bert1
It refers to predictable and reliable regularity in how things in the world and universe behave.
— Unseen
Ok, thanks that's a nice clear answer. I'm not agreeing with Henri in general, but it seems that your claim that the universe is law-driven is a figure of speech in the sense that what you mean by 'law' is not a kind of force that drives things. I do think the universe is law driven, but I mean it more literally, in the sense that I think it is will-driven. Regularity of observed behaviour is a function of persistent will. Are you OK with pillowcase length answers? — bert1
But don't you see, even if you believe that a will enforces that we call laws, that is also random in the sense that one might say "Well, natural laws could be will-driven or they simply could be there, a feature of the universe we find ourselves in, built-in as it were. We got the will-driven one more or less on the toss of a coin." — Unseen
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.