Okay, agreed. So we go from simple to complex? — Brett

You can agree with this if and only if you can create a reliable and true measure of complexity. Until then, we can't agree. Arbitrary or quasi-arbitrary declarations as to how complex a thing is are meaningless, and should be disposed of.

We don't have to agree, because you've removed yourself from the conversation.

Whether I removed myself from the converstation or not, the logic I presented stayed here. I am not material or important to the conversation; my ideas are. And my ideas stayed.

My agreement as the agreement of a person, does not matter. My logic and my arguments irrefutably show that YOU ought not to agree as well that we go from simple to complex, if you follow logic and reason.

If you agree that we go from simple to complex, you act unreasonable. I don't think that making unreasonable claims is reasonable behaviour on a philosophy site.

By "you" above I meant general "you" not you particularly or you alone as a person.

By "you" above I meant general "you" not you particularly or you alone as a person. — god must be atheist

Of course.

It is sort of absurd, though, to think that a conversation should cease because you disagree.

It is sort of absurd, though, to think that a conversation should cease because you disagree. — Brett

I reiterate, in case you missed it: my disagreement is immaterial. It is the logic that denies agreement with the notion that we progress from simple to complex. Who, that is, what person, presents the logic that forces the denial of agreement is IMMATERIAL.

My logic and my arguments irrefutably show that YOU ought not to agree as well that we go from simple to complex, if you follow logic and reason. — god must be atheist

Humans don’t need to create something more complex than themselves to demonstrate that simplicity evolves into complexity. Humans themselves have evolved into more complex organisms, and continue to evolve, particularly in relation to their capacity for more complex mental structures. — Possibility

Yes.

It just takes 2 to tango.

ovdtogt I barely understand anything you say. You’re too cryptic for me.

You only need duality to create complexity.

f 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? All our inventions no matter how advanced are but cheap imitations of nature. — TheMadFool

I think it’s worth considering your OP asking why there no evidence of something more complex than humans created by humans and looking to material evidence for that proof and not finding it. It’s indicative of our whole nature, don’t you think, and possibly our predicaments, that evidence of complexity created by us should be sought in things, that evidence of our intelligence is to be found in things.

@Brett

None of this disputes that society is made up of people...does it? So in a part of society, there is consciousness, that makes that part of society more complicated than all of society? That makes zero logical sense. I think I get your point, but I hope you are seeing that it is the various potential uses of the words "simple" and "complex" that are the source of the problem.

And until we understand it better I will not call consciousness complicated. What if consciousness is simply the touch of god, and nothing else? I get you are trying to make this discussion more scientific than that, but I have explained my hesitation to label things as simple or complex outside of context, and I don't have enough context to label consciousness. Is a dog's consciousness simpler or more complex than a human's? How so?

I see this thread suddenly got busy, so no need to get back to me if you have more exciting posts to respond to :smile: — ZhouBoTong

I want to achieve two things here:

1 Understand the meaning of simplicity and complexity

2. Understand whether the accepted wisdom that complexity proceeds from simplicity makes sense or not

From this point on SC will mean simplicity-complexity.

You speak of SC taking different forms based on context but the fact is we use SC with the same meaning in all and any context otherwise there would be a different word for each context. If you agree it's this universally applicable meaning of SC that I'm trying to zero in on.

You provided me with some lexical definitions of SC and I don't or can't dispute conventional meanings of this term but there should be a common motif that runs through all of them. What could it be? It appears that, despite my lack of skills in math, I've inadvertently quantified SC by using the the number of constituents and interactions at play in an object to get a sense of how simple or complex it is. I accept that this is probably just half the story or even that this is utter nonsense. If you think I'm wrong or partially correct, kindly be explicit of what needs modification or, if you think my theory is moonshine, give me reasons why.

For point 2, my definition would actually support the theory that simplicity evolves into complexity. We's always have to add to, rather than subtract form, to increase complexity and what results is a numerical increase of constituents and interactions manifesting as increased complexity.

Yet, if the above is true then the addition of intelligence into the mix should enhance, what one could call, the quality of the complexity e.g. constituents and their interactions would be elegant and beautiful. Yet this is not true. In other words I'm endorsing the view that a planned object should be more complex and beautifully so than an unplanned, random object. If you notice this is a common complaint against the proponents of intelligent design - the world having too many imperfections for it to be designed - and I use it here to question the belief that complexity emerges from simplicity.

Just to make things clear I think knowledge is a work in progress and all what I've said about how humans can't create objects more complex than themselves may be turned upside down in the future when the technological singularity becomes a reality.

But, natural selection is the brilliant child of evolution? — Brett

I don’t see it that way. I may have some false starts at trying to explain how I see this, so bear with me. But in my view, natural selection is not so much the child of evolution as its nemesis.

The term ‘natural selection’ refers to the idea that certain traits in a species are selected for by ‘nature’, who sifts out undesirable traits through the key parameters of survival, dominant access to resources and procreation. It seems ‘brilliant’ because we only see those who appear to be succeeding, and any failures are relegated to the past, to extinction - irrelevant, as it were.

But if we follow this ‘survival of the fittest’ theory through to its conclusion, then it seems that nature will eventually destroy itself in the process. It’s doomed ultimately to failure. Not so brilliant.

That we can act against our own survival, that we share resources and refrain from procreation; that we have evolved as fragile, soft-skinned, socially dependent creatures with exceptional awareness, intelligence and creativity; suggests to me that there is more to evolution than natural selection of random mutations describes. While survival is not an issue, we have continued to evolve - and in ways that run counter to the key parameters, suggesting that natural selection is a limiting factor on what is a broader evolutionary process - one that might not be as ‘random’ as we think.

While it seems that one can hypothetically formulate explanations for every possible species variation and trait using natural selection, I don’t believe that anyone ever has. It’s an overwhelming task. In those areas where we struggle - such as the evolution of the eye, multi-celled organisms, and human social behaviour such as altruism, suicide, love, etc - the concept of evolution as a creative impetus, with natural selection as its negation, seems to me a more plausible explanation than natural selection alone.

Survival of the fittest is brilliant?

But, natural selection is the brilliant child of evolution?

Survival of fittest is brilliant?

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. — god must be atheist

I think you said it more directly, but this is what I have been complaining about since the start. Glad I am not the only one to see it that way :smile:

From what I've seen of your posts you tend to lean towards relativism. Would that be fair? — Brett

I think you are right in that objectively I am a relativist. However, using the knowledge of "reality" that we can acquire, I think we can subjectively make conclusions on the best way to live in relation to certain (somewhat vague) goals.

And i may have missed an earlier response:

Why is this so? In what way is society more complex than humans? — Brett

In the same way that a human is more complex than a hand, or a heart, or a brain...the human is just one component of society. So it is definitionally more complex...and yet this doesn't seem quite right, does it? My point in using that example was to show the big problem we have in using "simple" or "complex" without A LOT of qualifiers/specifiers.

Is there any form of consciousness that you would be prepared to accept as less complex than a human’s? — Brett

I am not convinced that I understand consciousness (no, actually I am rather sure that I do not, haha)...does science think it understands it at this point (I really am not sure of the current consensus)?

How then, would I begin to rank them according to simplicity/complexity?

This is what I mean by A LOT more qualifiers/specifiers.

You speak of SC taking different forms based on context but the fact is we use SC with the same meaning in all and any context otherwise there would be a different word for each context. If you agree it's this universally applicable meaning of SC that I'm trying to zero in on. — TheMadFool

I think that "simple" and "complex" are relative concepts, like "big" and "small". So I can't see how they could take on a universal meaning...?

What is bigger a house or a car? One could answer that a house is TYPICALLY bigger, but there would be no universally correct answer. Again, more qualifiers are needed.

I've inadvertently quantified SC by using the the number of constituents and interactions at play in an object to get a sense of how simple or complex it is. I accept that this is probably just half the story or even that this is utter nonsense. — TheMadFool

Yes :smile: That is definitely a qualifier. But only one, and a rather limited one (notice based on that society is definitely more complex than a single human...and yet we both agree that seems problematic in a way). So I don't think this is nonsense, "half the story" is more like it.

If you think I'm wrong or partially correct, kindly be explicit of what needs modification or, if you think my theory is moonshine, give me reasons why. — TheMadFool

Is my response above enough? Definitely let me know if there was an aspect you were touching on that I did not address.

Hmmm, after reading the rest maybe I will try to quickly (I stink at that) say my view of your two points:

1 Understand the meaning of simplicity and complexity — TheMadFool

I have no doubt that you understand these words, it is just your attempt to ascribe universal meaning to relative words that leaves me struggling.

2. Understand whether the accepted wisdom that complexity proceeds from simplicity makes sense or not — TheMadFool

I appreciate your challenge to this readily accepted position. I feel too poorly informed to really get into it. Prior to the big bang, were things ultimately complex or ultimately simple? Neither? The first few microseconds after the big bang all of the matter/energy in the universe was crammed into a much smaller "space"...wouldn't this have caused far more interactions between particles (or bits of energy)? Isn't that a "type" of complexity? What is more complex, energy or matter? Why?

So I can certainly accept your challenge as reasonable...I am just a long way from feeling confident either way.

Is there any form of consciousness that you would be prepared to accept as less complex than a human’s?
— Brett

I am not convinced that I understand consciousness (no, actually I am rather sure that I do not, haha)...does science think it understands it at this point (I really am not sure of the current consensus)?

How then, would I begin to rank them according to simplicity/complexity? — ZhouBoTong

I understand your point about ranking according to simplicity/complexity. But I feel there must be a point where you can begin where there is enough evidence to begin with and work up from there and find the place where it’s impossible to compare, use that point as a beginning reference. The problem is that whoever chooses to can say that there’s no unit of measurement and therefor no possibility of discussion, not even the ides of suspending your own beliefs for a moment.

For instance, is this acceptable or is it once again only the subjective view of David Heath?

“Life Cycle of a Freshwater Pearl Mussel. The life cycle of most freshwater mussels is more complex than in most bivalves, involving the parasitism of a fish host.(http://bivalves.teacherfriendlyguide.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=136).

It seems to me a comfortable position to sit back and dismiss the idea that humans might be more complex than bivalves as subjective, or too difficult to even consider. Maybe everyone could try just a little bit harder.

I don’t see it that way. I may have some false starts at trying to explain how I see this, so bear with me. But in my view, natural selection is not so much the child of evolution as its nemesis. — Possibility

Just a bit of frivolity there. Hopefully it won’t get me banned.

I think I grasp where you’re coming from, I’m just not in agreement with all of it.

I meant the brilliance of natural selection resulted in us. Some may not be impressed with the result, but that’s just indulgence of the fortunate. The fact that you can contemplate the universe in the way you do suggests some measure of success. It’s possible natural selection is coming to an end, who knows? But that’s the force behind us being here now. You view it as a negative force that restricts possibilities (if I understand you correctly). Maybe it’s possible we’ve reached that point in time where natural selection no longer has the control it once had, that we are no longer caught up in it. But if natural selection is about survival then for us it has done its job brilliantly.

I think that "simple" and "complex" are relative concepts, like "big" and "small". So I can't see how they could take on a universal meaning...? — ZhouBoTong

Great point. However, notice that relativeness as applies here isn't the concept itself which is universal but to objects being compared to each other. A house may be heavier than a car and a car may be heavier than a person, relatively speaking, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of weight does it?

Thank you for your input though. Much appreciated.

I meant the brilliance of natural selection resulted in us. Some may not be impressed with the result, but that’s just indulgence of the fortunate. The fact that you can contemplate the universe in the way you do suggests some measure of success. It’s possible natural selection is coming to an end, who knows? But that’s the force behind us being here now. You view it as a negative force that restricts possibilities (if I understand you correctly). Maybe it’s possible we’ve reached that point in time where natural selection no longer has the control it once had, that we are no longer caught up in it. But if natural selection is about survival then for us it has done its job brilliantly. — Brett

In my view, it’s not natural selection, but the creative impetus, that displays its brilliance in us. We’ve developed an unprecedented capacity to interact with this creative impetus - to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration - and to do so in spite of what we often think of as an instinctive drive to ignore, isolate and exclude out of fear for our own survival.

But in my view, natural selection is not so much the child of evolution as its nemesis. — Possibility

I could agree with you there. But then life would be not so much the evolution of dead matter but its nemesis.

I think that "simple" and "complex" are relative concepts, like "big" and "small". So I can't see how they could take on a universal meaning...? — ZhouBoTong

Everything is part of the relative order of things. That is what is universal about everything. Everything is relative. Only death is absolute.

the concept of weight — TheMadFool

The weight of an object is relative. That all objects under gravity have weight is absolute.

it’s not natural selection, but the creative impetus, that displays its brilliance in us — Possibility

Natural selection also displays brilliance. Most science and art are inspired by nature.

I could agree with you there. But then life would be not so much the evolution of dead matter but its nemesis. — ovdtogt

Well, I don’t see life as the evolution of dead matter, considering it wasn’t alive. But I’m not sure how you figure that life is the nemesis of dead matter from what I’ve said.

Well, I don’t see life as the evolution of dead matter, considering it wasn’t alive. But I’m not sure how you figure that life is the nemesis of dead matter from what I’ve said. — Possibility

No? Did life not evolve out of dead matter?

Brute fact: living things die, dead things do not come alive.

Ah our great thinker has returned. Have your wounds healed after our little bruiser?
BTW Females typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY),

Notice that men have the female sex chromosome Einstein?

Brute fact: living things die, dead things do not come alive. — Metaphysician Undercover

And?

And? — ovdtogt

It refutes your claim that life evolved out of dead matter.