What do you mean by ‘negative impact’? — Brett

‘Survival’ is what remains when all the others stop living. Negative impact refers to the many ways that they stop living, basically. Some are ignored, isolated or excluded by elements of their environment - including other species, potential mates or social groups. Others ignore, isolate or exclude elements of the environment at their peril.

The only reason Darwin called it ‘selection’ was because the theory developed from an understanding of pigeon breeding - where breeders ‘select’ for certain preferred traits...

I don't think there is much difference in level of complexity between bacteria and a homo sapiens.
That said however I do think survival of the species is a kind of arms race where we have the nukes.

Some are ignored, isolated or excluded by elements of their environment - — Possibility

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, if you want to argue that one thing is more complex or less complex than another thing, then you must have a metric of complexity.

Much like 5 cm is longer than 3 cm, or 39 years is longer than 21 days, or speed of light is faster than 4 Km/h, you have to have a measure of complexity if you want to say with any certainty, "a human is more complex than a hydroelectric, damn."

Do you have such a measurement device and unit of complexity by which to establish the degree of complexity?

If yes, what is it?

If not, then you can't possibly argue scientifically that one thing is more complex than the other.

Sure you can say that anyone can tell a longer string by laying two strings side-by-side and NOT knowing how long they are. But you can't say that one star is moving faster or slower than the other, or else that one ball of yarn placed next to another ball of fluff is lighter or heavier than the other.

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.

Our knowledge evolves from the simple to the complex.

Simple is what you believe you understand. Complex is what you still do not understand.

We have more understanding over the properties of light than consciousness.

We have far more control over light than we have over consciousness.

Our knowledge evolves from the simple to the complex.

Simple is what you believe you understand. Complex is what you still do not understand.

We have more understanding over the properties of light than consciousness.

We have far more control over light than we have over consciousness. — ovdtogt

Okay. So I understand water, and I understand light. Which is less complex? Your standard of measurement is "I believe I understand it" and "I don't understand it." This is binary. There is no gradation. There is no metric, other the "complex" and "Not complex". You can't, by this metric, differentiate between complex and complex, and between simple and simple.

So... I don't understand consciousness... I don't understand economics... which is more complex? There is no way of telling by your way of measuring complexity, @ovdtogt.

We have far more control over light than we have over consciousness. — ovdtogt

Would you not consider your ability to direct your own thoughts to be indicative of a high degree of control over consciousness?

Would you not consider your ability to direct your own thoughts to be indicative of a high degree of control over consciousness? — Pantagruel

Our ability to control our thoughts is vastly inferior to our ability to control light.

Our ability to control our thoughts is vastly inferior to our ability to control light. — ovdtogt

Egad! I've never met anyone who could control light with his or her thoughts before. You must be barrels of fun at parties!

"I believe I understand it" and "I don't understand it." This is binary. There is no gradation. — god must be atheist

There is gradation.

The degree to which you understand how a the engine of a motor vehicle works. That can be from knowing how to drive it to being able to repair it. They are all degrees of knowledge from the simple to the complex.

Egad! I've never met anyone who could control light with his or her thoughts before. You must be barrels of fun at parties! — Pantagruel

Egad! Who here has mentioned here controlling light with their thoughts or are you a mind reader?

Ok...so you mentioned control. Perhaps I just don't understand the distinction between controlling something external to consciousness, versus controlling consciousness.

Since consciousness is doing the external controlling, wouldn't consciousness itself first have to be controlled to do the external controlling?

Since consciousness is doing the external controlling, wouldn't consciousness itself first have to be controlled to do the external controlling? — Pantagruel

Yes absolutely. That is what scientists and engineers are able to do. We (mere mortals) just profit off the fruits of their labor.

Scientists and engineers are also conscious, so the same question applies to them. If the scientist is able to create a theory that facilitates external control of some thing, a fortiori the scientist must be controlling his or her thoughts.

Scientists and engineers are also conscious, so the same question applies to them. If the scientist is able to create a theory that facilitates external control of some thing, a fortiori the scientist must be controlling his or her thoughts. — Pantagruel

They are absolutely controlling their thoughts. But that is not easy. That is hard. That is why you have to be pretty clever to become a scientist of engineer. It is all about thought control.

By controlling their thought 'processes' they have discovered how to control light. And now any idiot can control light.

But if A controls thought and thought controls B, the extent of control exerted by A on B can only be equal to or less than the extent of control exerted by A on thought. In order to turn on a light I must intend and choose and will to do it. Thus the degree of control I have over the light is contingent on the degree of control I have over my own intentions. It is a classic a fortiori condition.

Thus the degree of control I have over the light is contingent on the degree of control I have over my own intentions. — Pantagruel

It does not require high degree of thought control to flip a light switch. It does to light a fire outside on a rainy day.

The degree to which you understand how a the engine of a motor vehicle works. That can be from knowing how to drive it to being able to repair it. They are all degrees of knowledge from the simple to the complex. — ovdtogt

This you said in relation to how complex a system IS.

How complex a given system IS, is a fixed state. It is stagnant, not dynamic.

But you now say that a system can be complex and more complex.

You are reducing your argument to a self-contradiction. According to what you said, a system is both complex, and more complex, at the same time. This is necessarily self-contradictory.

Unless you pull in that you did not say "and in the same respect." Yes, the complexity therefore is different as judged by different people; by one who knows how to operate it, and by another one who knows more, that is, to operate it and to repair it.

But then you find yourself at the original problem of measuring complexity. You did not differentiate between complex and complex; you differentiated between the measuring sticks, between "understanding by person A" and "understanding by person B", which does not have an objective, measurable indication of how complex the measured thing is.

(The same argument stands if you say that it is the one and same person who understands the engine to different degrees over time; first, knowing less, then, knowing more. Here the argument would satisfy "in the same respect" but not "at the same time".)

What I am arguing for is a MEASURING DEVICE that indicates objective differences in measurement, given in numerical values, according to differences in complexity. This device exist neither in reality, nor in conceptual form. Therefore those who state one thing (such as a human) is more or less complex than another thing (suc as a hydroelectric dam, or an economic system), can not make their claim stick, their claim is not solid and it is highly susceptible to subjective judgment.

And that was my original point.

t does not require high degree of thought control to flip a light switch. — ovdtogt

Right, and you pointed out that whole mechanism was the product of prodigious thought effort.

Reverse the argument. If you can't control thought, you can't logically be said to control anything else. It isn't a parallel process, it is linear.

If you can't control thought, you can't logically be said to control anything else. It isn't a parallel process, it is linear. — Pantagruel

Show me where I stated you can't control your thoughts.

Show me where I stated you can't control your thoughts. — ovdtogt

I think I offered a pretty robust explanation of the linear connection between control of thought and control of what is external to thought, plus the a fortiori justification, so I'm going to have to assume you are just quibbling now and aren't really interested in furthering the overall argument. I don't do that.

This you said in relation to how complex a system IS.

How complex a given system IS, is a fixed state. It is stagnant, not dynamic.

But you now say that a system can be complex and more complex. — god must be atheist

Yes that is exactly what I said. Yes, our ability to control 'stuff' is very dependent on the complexity of its properties. It is far easier to control light than it is to control how a drug behaves in your body. Our ability to control light was the one of the first achievements of the Enlightenment. It was one of the easiest problems to solve so to speak.

Thus the degree of control I have over the light is contingent on the degree of control I have over my own intentions. — Pantagruel

If you can't control your intentions you can't control anything. What is your point? To state you need a certain degree of control over your thought process to achieve anything is like kicking an open door.

Yes that is exactly what I said. Yes, our ability to control 'stuff' is very dependent on the complexity of its properties. It is far easier to control light than it is to control how a drug behaves in your body. Our ability to control light was the one of the first achievements of the Enlightenment. It was one of the easiest problems to solve so to speak. — ovdtogt

Please read the rest of my post. Responding to a small portion can make any response valid, but your response is not valid when you consider my whole post.

My post showed that there is no measuring stick to measure complexity. You ignored most of my post and concluded that you are right. That is only acceptable if we all agree to ignore each other's posts, at least partially, and make conclusions on partially read posts. I don't agree to that.

If you can't control your intentions you can't control anything. What is your point? — ovdtogt

That was my point. Ergo, a fortiori, the thing over which you exert the highest degree of control is always going to be your own thoughts, or consciousness.

the thing over which you exert the highest degree of control is always going to be your own thoughts, or consciousness. — Pantagruel

Well perhaps not you or me. Newton, Einstein......Plato, Socrates... yes.

Ok, I kind of see a point there. If you are saying that consciousness exists in a kind of collective milieu, in which the most highly developed minds have managed to implement/effect mechanisms which facilitate control over material reality, and that some other minds not as, self-controlled, let's say, then can exert superior control over material reality than over their own thoughts....

Yeah, potentially, yeah. I do tend to think in terms of "best case scenarios" or logical bottom lines.

I guess we both could be correct in a way. Yes, you do have a point.

The truth is always somewhere in the middle. We are all groping around in the dark with a candle to light our ways.

That is actually very useful to my own efforts. Thank you very much.

The truth is always somewhere in the middle — ovdtogt

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