Nonlinear dynamic systems are deterministic. — 180 Proof

Maybe. But are they predictable? And what does that have to do with the OP?

Regarding Non-linear Dynamic Systems, neuroscientist Terrence Deacon discusses the spooky phenomenon of "Strange Attractors" in chaotic systems. Those so-called "attractors" cause somewhat deterministic behaviors, but there is nothing there to cause the attraction. Deacon calls this "the power of absence". I interpret this natural feature in terms of evolution, which similarly seems to be drawn toward a future state that does not yet exist. As Deacon notes, most scientists are oblivious to the teleological signs in nature, probably because they prefer to think that the evolutionary system is doing a random walk instead of a purposeful deterministic march. :cool:


Strange Attractor :
In Chaos Theory and Dynamic Systems, a Strange Attractor is a mathematical value, or point in space, that seems to pull the elements of the system into warped orbits, like planets around the sun. What’s strange about these mathematical “objects” is that there is no mass at the center of orbit except a numerical value. Its “pull” is statistical instead of gravitational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

Power of Absence :
"A causal role for absence seems to be absent from the natural sciences.”
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

Jacques Monod : "The central problem of biology is how could purposeful systems have emerged from a universe with no purpose?"

Charitably, G, you've been playing tennis without a net for a long ... long ... long ... time. :clap: — 180 Proof

Maybe. But you just hit one into the net. :joke:

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

That's exactly why Pantheists and PanEnDeists equate G*D with Nature. As Spinoza concluded, "god sive nature" : god or nature, same thing -- no distinction. The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe. Multiverse enthusiasts assume the latter, but they have no empirical evidence to support their faith in eternal Nature. :smile:

The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe. — Gnomon

The Big Bang doesn't seem to be an issue since god is seen as somewhat of a supreme creator and if the universe is self-created, as it is in an atheist's mind, god, again, equates with the universe. God creates the universe, the universe creates itself; ergo God = the universe. What do you think?

The Big Bang doesn't seem to be an issue since god is seen as somewhat of a supreme creator and if the universe is self-created, as it is in an atheist's mind, god, again, equates with the universe. God creates the universe, the universe creates itself; ergo God = the universe. What do you think? — TheMadFool

Sounds like Atheist = God. :joke:

I think that the crux of the Creation question is that ultimately something must have been self-created in order for anything to exist in a physical form. For Spinoza, that ultimate "something" was "god sive nature", and he thought that Nature was eternal. But, of course, that was long before the Big Bang theory put a damper on that notion. :smile:

Atheist = God — Gnomon

That's it! Theists and atheists have been fighting for nothing. Reminds of the situation where two people are talking about the same person but they think they're talking about two different persons. This happens, right?

Fine-tuned universe, intelligent design, ...? Some evidence and such to take into consideration:

• life that we know of came about maybe 10 billion or so years after the Big Bang (the known/observable universe)
• by far most species that have lived on Earth are extinct
• we (homo sapiens) have been around for an insignificant amount of time thus far
• by and large, the universe is inhospitable to life as we know it, by far actually, sterile
• life will be long gone before the universe heads into heat death, which will continue on for an unfathomable amount of time
• children suffer and die from cancer, and maladies due to our makeups, and the occasional background radiation, etc
• lifeforms (and viruses which are border-life/non-life) cause all kinds of suffering to, and deaths of, each other
• we (humans) try to "fix" what we consider nature's "shortcomings" (e.g. the plague, eyesight)
• considering ourselves the apex of life, or the raison d'être for it all, is unwarranted self-elevation, incredulity, anthropo-bias
• apart from ourselves, the world seems rather indifferent to us and our concerns
• there are antinatalists and pessimists ;)

• Argument from poor design (Religions Wiki)
• Argument from poor design (Wikipedia)

Sounds like Atheist = God. :joke: — Gnomon

Yes. One who does not believe in his own existence. :lol:

life that we know of came about maybe 10 billion or so years after the Big Bang (the known/observable universe) — jorndoe

However, had not the Big Bang resulted in precisely the balance of atomic forces that eventuated then there would be no matter, therefore no universe. A fraction of a percentage difference in the six fundamental constants would have resulted either an immediate collapse, or in plasma and so on.

apart from ourselves, the world seems rather indifferent to us and our concerns — jorndoe

Which is a judgement.

That said, I agree the OP is very sketchy. I actually bought the Barrow and Tipler book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle from Amazon recently, just so I'd have a copy in my library. It's an enormous book, 738 pages, with mountains of footnotes and references.

All that given, my two bobs worth is simply that it's unfeasible to claim that life arose because of chance, or just happened to form. But that doesn't necessarily imply the apparent opposite, that it was the result an intentional act or cause, either. It might be that neither intention nor chance are meaningful concepts at the cosmic level. Nevertheless, I will say that I'm sceptical about atheist attempts to argue, a la Jacques Monod and others, of life being a fluke occurence or random happening. And why? Because the causal chain that is necessary for the formation of matter, planets and living organisms goes right back to the initial singularity, and science can't see beyond that.

Incidentally Closer to Truth has a long series of video interviews on the anthropic principle https://www.closertotruth.com/topics/cosmos/our-special-universe/fine-tuning-the-universe

However, had not the Big Bang resulted in precisely the balance of atomic forces that eventuated then there would be no matter, therefore no universe. — Wayfarer

The universe is fine-tuned to what it is? That doesn't really say much.

By the way, evaluating all possible universes with a sample size of one isn't the easiest task. (Heck, some claim that Heaven and Hell are possible.) How would we go about that?

Which is a judgement. — Wayfarer

I'd say observation.

I actually bought the Barrow and Tipler book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle — Wayfarer

Is that "Omega Point" Tipler? *cough* Don't recall the title, but two guys authored a book not long ago, arguing opposite points. One of them at least an accredited physicist (maybe both). I can try to look it up. Might be better.

Edit: one of the two authors was Luke Barnes.

I actually bought the Barrow and Tipler book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle from Amazon recently, just so I'd have a copy in my library. It's an enormous book, 738 pages, with mountains of footnotes and references. — Wayfarer

Wayfarer!

Happy Monday. If you will, any sort of synopsis or initial thoughts about that book you just bought thus far?

I was curious to see if you had any comments on my previous supposition here:

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.

Also, I forgot to add:

Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relate to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter, etc..

Science is deeply involved in such issues but any meaning-of-life questions are deferred or subordinated to the philosopher... .

However, we can say that: ...."quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which the observer and [the] observed are interwoven"- Paul Davies.

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. — TheMadFool

Interesting TMF! Thank you.

Randomness is not chaos. Metaphorically, one could think of randomness as say Wheeler's Cloud. Or, variations of the cosmic computer brain... . Our volitional existence, which in part is metaphysical, chooses from that which is available to us from our sense experience, intuition, and other Kantian types of apperception and reasoning... .

Can you elaborate on your notion of..." can't be told apart"?

Daniel Dennett admittingly didn't explain consciousness. He brought up some good metaphysical points though (Qualia, etc..) With respect to things-in-themselves as being illusionary, there are many things in life and nature that possess those kinds of qualities. Time, in and of itself, is certainly one of them.

An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias — 180 Proof

Of course it is. Because the principle was observed from the perspective of humans. Everything people do is anthropocentric. What else would you expect : simian-centric? theo-centric? Science is supposed to aim for purely objective and unbiased observations and conclusions : the "view from nowhere". But, pure objectivity would be God's point of view from outside the universe, and outside the human body. Moreover, the term itself was coined and used by scientists, until its implications of divine design raised furious criticism. :smile:

Origin of Anthropic Principle :
The phrase "anthropic principle" first appeared in Brandon Carter's contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
In 1952 British astronomer Fred Hoyle first used anthropic reasoning to make a successful prediction about the structure of the carbon nucleus.
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle

Can you elaborate on your notion of..." can't be told apart"? — 3017amen

A discussion in another thread with 180 Proof revolved around mind and intelligence. 180 Proof said something to the effect that evolution is intelligent in that it suggests an optimum strategy given the volatile situation of the enviroment. Nonetheless, he refused to accept the involvement of a mind behind evolution citing AI as instances of intelligence sans minds.

My response was to present a a gedanken experiment using the Turing test. Suppose you're interacting (say playing chess) with something that's hidden from view by a curtain. You examine the moves and come to the conclusion that your opponent is intelligent. Based on this piece of information (the entity behind the curtain is intelligent) alone can you infer whether your opponent has a mind (a human player) or doesn't have a mind (AI)? The answer is a big NO!. Why? Both humans (having minds) and AI (having no minds) possess intelligence and so you won't be able to tell which is which. Mind - No mind equivalency.

The same argument works for evolution which bears all the marks of intelligence and so, based on this single data point, one won't be able to infer whether evolution is the product of a mind or is like AI, mindless. Hence, with nothing to go on but signs of intelligence, evolution with a mind at the helm and evolution with no such thing "...can't be told apart..."

A discussion in another thread with 180 Proof revolved around mind and intelligence. 180 Proof said something to the effect that evolution is intelligent in that it suggests an optimum strategy given the volatile situation of the enviroment. Nonetheless, he refused to accept the involvement of a mind behind evolution citing AI as instances of intelligence sans minds. — TheMadFool

It appears 180 could not square the Structuralist circle by considering abstract sentient Being, in his theory. Big mistake. In other words, not comprehensive enough... . (Ironically enough, he tends to get overly defensive/emotional about his views there. He's very sensitive about justification of his atheism.)

My response was to present a a gedanken experiment using the Turing test. Suppose you're interacting (say playing chess) with something that's hidden from view by a curtain. You examine the moves and come to the conclusion that your opponent is intelligent. Based on this piece of information (the entity behind the curtain is intelligent) alone can you infer whether your opponent has a mind (a human player) or doesn't have a mind (AI)? The answer is a big NO!. Why? Both humans (having minds) and AI (having no minds) possess intelligence and so you won't be able to tell which is which. Mind - No mind equivalency. — TheMadFool

Unless I'm misinterpreting the analogy, generally speaking Turing machine algorithms (patterns) have a lower complexity (see OP) versus that of higher complexity. In theory, while biological systems can emerge from very long, complicated chain of events and evolutionary processes, we still have a very large leap from not only explaining why the laws of physics has no evolutionary competition, but to explaining how consciousness emerges from matter.

The same argument works for evolution which bears all the marks of intelligence and so, based on this single data point, one won't be able to infer whether evolution is the product of a mind or is like AI, mindless. Hence, with nothing to go on but signs of intelligence, evolution with a mind at the helm and evolution with no such thing "...can't be told apart..." — TheMadFool

Wouldn't self-awareness itself, be able to poke holes in the analogy? In other words, you would have to ask the AI thing-in-itself to prove it lives inside of a computer simulation. We then, are seemingly no better off in determining the reality of its existence, right?

the "view from nowhere" — Gnomon

a "view from wherever" — Gnomon

... is better (e.g. relativity).

Anyway, biased or not, we can still say things about the world we're in.
The anthropic principle has anthropo-bias inherently. Or by design. ;)

• Error, fallibility, revision, correction: We're sometimes wrong about things. What, then, made us wrong, but whatever is indeed the case?
• Agreement, confirmation, coherence: We agree on numerous things; when to be at work in the morning; where the local grocery store is; how a pawn moves in chess; this is English; ... The fly and the chameleon are in agreement about the colors of the environment when the chameleon sneaks up on the fly and catches it. As a spectator, I can understand this little drama; I also agree with the fly and the chameleon about the colors.

Anyway, biased or not, we can still say things about the world we're in.
The anthropic principle has anthropo-bias inherently. Or by design. ;) — jorndoe

You say that like being human is a bad thing. Are you a misanthrope?

I'm kidding. I know what you mean. But, just as rational thinking doesn't come easily to humans, cognitive biases seem to be inherent, even in those who aspire to objectivity. So, I tend to give pathetic humans a little slack. Besides, as I noted before, the term "Anthropic Principle" was created -- "by design" -- by objective scientists, to explain the parallels they saw between abstract laws of physics & initial conditions of evolution, and computer programs that are designed to reach a specific species of final output. :smile:

Misanthropy is the general hatred, dislike, distrust or contempt of the human species,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

Cognitive biases are inherent in the way we think, and many of them are unconscious.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-identify-cognitive-bias

He's very sensitive about justification of his atheism — 3017amen

He comes off as a person of great erudition. It's great to have him in the forum. I hope to keep learning from him...and others too.

Unless I'm misinterpreting the analogy, generally speaking Turing machine algorithms (patterns) have a lower complexity (see OP) versus that of higher complexity. In theory, while biological systems can emerge from very long, complicated chain of events and evolutionary processes, we still have a very large leap from not only explaining why the laws of physics has no evolutionary competition, but to explaining how consciousness emerges from matter. — 3017amen

I've always maintained that the jump from chimpanzees to humans, two species that share 95% of their DNA some say, is one far greater in magnitude than the the jump from inanimate matter to life. It's as if creating life, the simplest cells like bacteria, is child's play compared to creating human-level consciousness.

Wouldn't self-awareness itself, be able to poke holes in the analogy? In other words, you would have to ask the AI thing-in-itself to prove it lives inside of a computer simulation. We then, are seemingly no better off in determining the reality of its existence, right? — 3017amen

I did think about that. There seems to be an unfounded assumption in thinking that AI isn't conscious because, as we all know, by that token even human consciousness is uncertain insofar as other minds are the issue. We infer consciousness in other people - other minds - not by some kind of direct access to their consciousness (impossible as of the moment) but through how they behave and of the the cues we keep an eye out for is intelligence. In other words, a big clue, at least we think it is, that indicates the presence of consciousness (minds) is intelligence. Compare this with the intelligence AI demonstrate by beating us at our own game as it were. Shouldn't we extend AI the same courtesy and deem them as conscious too? :chin:

He comes off as a person of great erudition. It's great to have him in the forum. I hope to keep learning from him...and others too. — TheMadFool

The key phrase is "comes off". Unfortunately, there are other's including myself who would beg to differ. Physics explanations/analogies aren't necessarily in his wheelhouse.

did think about that. There seems to be an unfounded assumption in thinking that AI isn't conscious because, as we all know, by that token even human consciousness is uncertain insofar as other minds are the issue. We infer consciousness in other people - other minds - not by some kind of direct access to their consciousness (impossible as of the moment) but through how they behave and of the the cues we keep an eye out for is intelligence. In other words, a big clue, at least we think it is, that indicates the presence of consciousness (minds) is intelligence. Compare this with the intelligence AI demonstrate by beating us at our own game as it were. Shouldn't we extend AI the same courtesy and deem them as conscious too? :chin: — TheMadFool

But the problem I see ( you tell me otherwise) with the logic or analogy is that if the inference was AI to another AI life form (if the two were reasoning with each other), then you would have two man-made robots making logical inferences with each other. In that scenario I don't see how you can compare man-made robots to biological complexity, especially something from nothing (the big bang, etc.), much less than the fact that someone had to create the AI Robot to begin with, right?

In a similar way, I personally don't have a problem with Multiverse theories because in part what's driving some theories is the idea of "Anthropic Selection" regardless. Hence:

...the theory proposes that all possible physical conditions are represented somewhere among the ensemble, and the reason why our own particular universe looks designed is that only in those universes which have that seemingly contrived form will life (consciousness) be able to arise. Hence it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe so propitiously suited to biological requirements. It has been "anthropically selected". -- Paul Davies

Sounds like to me there is also some sort of logical necessity working here... ?

Jorndoe!

Thanks for your thoughts. I checked out the links. It looks like those arguments are more religious in nature v. say, a cosmological God/first cause. For instance, it talks about Omni-3 stuff which is a theological interpretation about the mind of a God, you know, apologetics stuff. It sort of begs other questions though about certain kinds of things that seem subjectively true, and what kinds of things are objectively true.

Similarly, in relation to questions about evolutionary theories and such, unlike Darwinist theories, I think 'objectively' we know that the laws of physics and the initial cosmological conditions to support life have 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 enough to allow for consciousness, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is indeed far from absurd.

That also begs other questions relative to whether mathematics itself is invented or has some objective/independent existence, only to be discovered from time to time. Those universal laws that seem so 'unreasonably effective' infer some sort of abstract metaphysical existence. You know, kind of like consciousness itself... .

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 enough to allow for consciousness, then the suggestion of an Anthropic design is indeed far from absurd. — 3017amen

Unless it is absurd. In a book titled, Just Six Numbers, here:
https://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036732
The author takes this on. To be very brief, the speculative idea is that universes come and go, many of them, their histories dependent on physics that govern them, some relatively small differences having large consequences. And ours just happens to be good for us.

And I read all such not as attempting to resolve ultimate mysteries, but instead as the attempt to isolate the mystery and question it on the right ground and in the right terms. At one time that might have been an appeal to Zeus, or whatever, but we've moved pretty far from that.

It's instructive, imo, that most creation stories are denominated myth, and that for a reason.

most creation stories are denominated myth — tim wood

Some argue that creation, existence, and all of life is just an illusion. Take the phenomenon/paradox of Time for example... .

There are many things in life that are seemingly beyond reason. But once again, so is the explanation of your consciousness/itself (consciousness violating rules of bivalence, non-contradiction, etc.). Quite a mystery indeed :joke:

(consciousness violating rules of bivalence, non-contradiction, etc.) — 3017amen

How does this work?

The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe. — Gnomon

Yeah. That's a wrap for Gnome.

consciousness violating rules of bivalence, non-contradiction, etc.) — 3017amenHow does this work? — tim wood

Not sure I understand your question. But, consider the conscious, subconscious and unconscious mind working together. If one were to describe that phenomenon of cognition, you wouldn't be able to describe it logically. For instance, driving a car while daydreaming, then crashing and killing yourself. Or driving while thinking about a math equation, and so on.

The mind is not only capable of doing two things at once, but your mind can also trick your self-awareness into thinking you're on a beach while driving, hence crashing and dying. The proposition that describes the phenomenon would violate many rules of bivalence/non-contradiction/excluded middle because we don't know which element of consciousness was driving the car.

Think of it as varying degrees of truth value, or two truth values at the same time, like fuzzy logic. I was aware and unaware that I was driving my car. (Or I was driving and not driving at the same time-your consciousness is 'logically impossible'.)

Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans

Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system. — 3017amen

What if self consciousness starts with memories? Recognition of the self comes from analyzing remembered events and assigning cause and effect. Sometimes the self is a cause and sometimes it's affected. Either way it's always central in the narrative.

Maybe at first all the things we put under the umbrella of consciousness are identified as parts of the environment. The storm is angry. The river loves me. The lion hates me. I kill the lion.

I've been pondering why it is that math stalled in development until the invention of abstract money. Maybe abstractions were there, but not entirely fleshed out the way we experience them.

What if self consciousness starts with memories? Recognition of the self comes from analyzing remembered events and assigning cause and effect. Sometimes the self is a cause and sometimes it's affected. Either way it's always central in the narrative. — frank

Hey Frank!

Thanks for your contribution. Long time no talk, I hope all is well with you and yours!

I think that's a great question. It reminds me of the perception differences between the Will itself (the metaphysical part of consciousness), and life experiences, which, are essentially still all part of cause and effect.

Meaning, I perceive I'm self-aware in a different way as I age. It seems that on a gradient scale, one's basic Will to live/survive is more predominant in earlier years than say in later years because we have no memories to reflect upon. Then as we age, our Will seems to be less involved in Being because we've collected memories to either be happy or sad about. So if for example we wanted to kill ourselves, we would presumably do it because our collection of memories are bad versus good. The bad outweighed the good. And in that case, our intellect overpowered our Will; our Will was subordinated by our intellect. Our intellect said life is not worth living.

Maybe at first all the things we put under the umbrella of consciousness are identified as parts of the environment. The storm is angry. The river loves me. The lion hates me. I kill the lion.

I've been pondering why it is that math stalled in development until the invention of abstract money. Maybe abstractions were there, but not entirely fleshed out the way we experience them. — frank

Can you share some examples of that Frank?


BTW- relative to causation, what are your thoughts:

1. Darwinism=Bottom-up reasoning
2. Emergence= Top-down reasoning

Anyway, thanks again for poking your head in on the discussion...you have plenty of philosophy to offer!!!

So this would be my question: say your experiences are like texts. Do you read them while they're being laid down to paper? Or do you act unconsciously and read them later?

Remembering backward, but living forward, as SK said. Does that have any bearing?

Can you share some examples of that Frank? — 3017amen

Of mathematics following money? Abstract money was invented in Lydia. Our numbering system comes from India. It replaced the Roman numerals for issues of trade, calculating interest, that sort of thing.

Money became even more abstract with the development of banking. Now we have virtual value.

Math piggybacked all of this.

BTW- relative to causation, what are your thoughts:

1. Darwinism=Bottom-up reasoning
2. Emergence= Top-down reasoning — 3017amen

I know what you're asking, but I have to think about it

.

Anyway, thanks again for poking your head in on the discussion...you have plenty of philosophy to offer!! — 3017amen

Thanks! Cool thread.

So this would be my question: say your experiences are like texts. Do you read them while they're being laid down to paper? Or do you act unconsciously and read them later?

Remembering backward, but living forward, as SK said. Does that have any bearing? — frank

Extraordinary questions, I mean that! It speaks to part of the "value system" model from the OP. As such, I am going to monder this ( a monder is a cross between a mull and a ponder LOL), but want to plant a seed in the meantime:

Okay, let's consider SK's famous quote: “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards,” What are some implications? Well, in thinking about top-down versus bottom-up reasoning, it made me thing about how intellectual life (one's value system) is thought about. Let's use a simple example of one who loses their job or their lover or gets a promotion, or any event in time, etc... .

With respect to cause and effect and how it relates to your questions, the vast majority of time we can only understand why these things happen by reflecting on the past. We use intellect and reason to determine why things happened the way they did, or do. We unconsciously move forward in everydayness knowing about these experiences and experience the resulting feelings from them. Sometimes we are self-aware and other times we are not. But we are guided nonetheless by our Will and intellect to move forward with living life. In short, I would say we do both. But I think there is much more to parse there... .

My question relates to how that cognition works with philosophical theories about how we got here. Is that foregoing an example of top-down reasoning or bottom-up reasoning, I wonder.

Even so, a reader might ask themselves, in that little scenario, what Darwinian survival advantages do those kinds of value systems have on humans? Are they too, some kind of abstract value system in themselves? Objectively, why should we care, when survival instinct, and the basic needs of food clothing and shelter have already been met?