Do our theories simply ‘resonate’ with real states of the world, or are they designed to produce something absolutely new, that was never there before? — Joshs

It's a two way traffic. Our inner world can resonate with litteraly all processes in the physical world. Our brain can resonate with or simulate all of them. At the same time, our inner resonances or simulations can shape the outer world by us bodily interacting with it, litterally shaping the world. The simulating or resonating is a non-computational process and thus can never be accomplished by a computer, which is the result of a very specific thought process.

You are arguing that only living organisms are capable of creativity, because of their self-organization? I think the inorganic evolves also. Hydrogen evolved from
something simpler , and the higher elements from the lower elements. Organic molecules evolved from
inorganic. The inorganic components of the computer in front of you are still changing , albeit very slowly.
4m — Joshs

Yes. And life is what these ever more complex processes accumulated into. From lifeless dead matter (with a non-explainable element called charge by physicists, of which they haven't the faintest idea what it actually is; it's a magical divine stuff the gods have charged matter with to make interaction and life possible) living processes, with feet, eyes, ears, bodies, internal simulation devices, etc. developed. I'm one of them and type to you with a laugh on my face, my brainy world constantly simulating the world while my body moves in it. Magic! And I can hear music at the same time, and hear the dog whine. From birth till death we walk through the world, which projects itself into the brain, where it comes alive and is actively shaped. We have no on/off button and to create a life means to create a new big bang and universe, which is the only way to let it develop freely and naturally. It's thus impossible to create live or program it.

Yes. And life is what these ever more complex processes accumulated into. From lifeless dead matter (with a non-explainable element called charge by physicists, of which they haven't the faintest idea what it actually is; it's a magical divine stuff the gods have charged matter with to make interaction and life possible) living processes, with feet, eyes, ears, bodies, internal simulation devices, etc. developed. I'm one of them and type to you with a laugh on my face, my brainy world constantly simulating the world while my body moves in it. Magic! And I can hear music at the same time, and hear the dog whine. From birth till death we walk through the world, which projects itself into the brain, where it comes alive and is actively shaped. We have no on/off button and to create a life means to create a new big bang and universe, which is the only way to let it develop freely and naturally. It's thus impossible to create live or program it. — Hillary

I’m not one who believes there is a profound qualitative gulf that separates the living from the non-living. With the help of autopoietic self-organizing theories and enactivism we now have a way to connect human cognition and affect with the simplest living systems. Rather than posting some special , unique status associated with human reason and feelings in contrast with the ear of the animal kingdom , we can now trace the basis of affecting and cognition i from single-called organisms. I think we will eventually be able to extend those dynamics to the inorganic realm of evolution as well, so the magic will have been shown to have begun with the simplest physical interactions in an ancient universe. ‘Lifeless and dead’ will no longer be appropriate ascriptions of this inorganic realm.

Our computers are appendages. We don’t build them for what they do in themselves but for how we can get them to usefully interact with us. We have used animals this way, and Skinner’s behaviorism face us a mechanistic model for interacting with animals as if they were machines. As our neural models change , we will no longer design our thinking appendages as calculating devices , but use wetware to device simple creatures
which we will interact with in more
creative ways, because these living systems will not be based on deterministic schematics.

Even the computerized devices
we now use never actually behaved deterministically. In their interaction with us they are always capable of surprising us. We call this bugs or errors , but they reflect the fact that even what is supposedly deterministic has no existence prior to its interaction with us interpreting beings, and thus was always in its own way a continually creative appendage.

‘Lifeless and dead’ will no longer be appropriate ascriptions of this inorganic realm. — Joshs

I agree. Even the smallest chunks of matter contains the seed of life, or even already life itself. There are at most differences in grade.

quote="Joshs;692164"]As our neural models change , we will no longer design our thinking appendages as calculating devices , but use wetware to device simple creatures which we will interact with in more
creative ways, because these living systems will not be based on deterministic schematics.[/quote]

You mean our material neural models?

Even the computerized devices
we now use never actually behaved deterministically. In their interaction with us they are always capable of surprising us. — Joshs

Yes, but even a single neuron can't be created in a lab. Let alone a hundred billion of them interconnected in erratic ways and living in a living body in a chaotic world. Only such a structure can produce consciousness and creativity. The game of Life (based on a few simple rules) gives very surprising non-predictable results, but I think the real game of life is a bit more complex.

even a single neuron can't be created in a lab. Let alone a hundred billion of them interconnected in erratic ways and living in a living body in a chaotic world. Only such a structure can produce consciousness and creativity. The game of Life (based on a few simple rules) gives very surprising non-predictable results, but I think the real game of life is a bit more complex. — Hillary

Let’s think about why we would want to create a single neuron. You said this would be needed to produce consciousness and creativity. But you also said that even non-living processes are creative in a certain sense. So the question may be why we should claim that our invented devices are entirely lacking in ‘creativity’. If , as we agreed , the computer isn’t a natural object ( which is a creatively evolving process) but an appendage, an interaction that we set up as a certain kind of useful structure, then what is it that we see when look at the historical development of our inventions? So they not aid our own creativity in increasingly effective and accelerating ways? Isn’t it the case that we cannot invent a living cell because we don’t understand enough about how a cell works? Our most advanced computers not only are less complex than a virus, they are less complex than the intricate structure of simple inorganic molecules, given that we don’t know enough about the physical world to invent such molecules.

If we are not ready to invent a living cell , why should we assume that we are missing anything by not having to us capacity? Would a primitive society benefit from having a computer placed in their midst, given their inability to invent such a device or appreciate its use? Don’t the devices we are capable of inventing reflect our readiness to benefit creatively from what we interact with? As we become smarter, our devices become smarter and our interaction with them becomes more and more creative?
So isn’t it irrelevant that we can’t ‘create a living cell’? We create only what we are ready to benefit from. The fact we can’t create life is just a reflection of the fact that we wouldn’t know what to do with such an ‘invention’. If an advanced species who could create life for their purposes were to give us some of their creations, it would be wasted on us.

I would argue that interacting with life is more valuable than ‘creating’ it , and we continue to understand living things , including ourselves, especially at the most complex level of conscious behavior, better and better over time. Our interactions with other animals also become richer and more useful due to this increase in understanding. We used to think animals couldnt cognize, emote, create tools , create and pass on a culture, have language. All that has changed. The evolution of our understanding of behavior is a kind of technology in itself, and is expressed in improvements in the devices we build that imitate behavior.

So I dont think there is anything magical about ‘creating’ life. What is important and relevant is the ever constant improvements in what we do invent.

Our most advanced computers not only are less complex than a virus, they are less complex than the intricate structure of simple inorganic molecules, given that we don’t know enough about the physical world to invent such molecules. — Joshs

It depends on the simple organic molecule. Simple organic molecules can be made without detailed knowledge. But a virus, not even a DNA molecule, can't be created in a lab. So even DNA molecules or viruses are more intelligent than computers, which are no more than programmed instructions performed at super high speed, giving the impression of intelligence.

So I dont think there is anything magical about ‘creating’ life. — Joshs

Of course there is no magic involved, but the point is, we can't create life. Life can only evolve naturally.

It is not at all miscellaneous. There are different schools of thought with a different definition of the object. At the fringes there will be there will be disagreement, just like there is with all categorization. — Tobias

As an Umbrella term Metaphysics means nothing more than any philosophical effort that deals with claims beyond the current limits of our epistemology.
So by defintion (μετα- φυσική/after we are done with Physika (modern Science) any claim that isn't answer by our currently epistemology is a metaphysical claims.
Now they are Philosophical Metaphysical claims i.e. why(teleological) questions on human behavior and pseudo Metaphysical claims i.e. why(teleological) question on Natural workings.

-"Is that post directed to Mr. Smith or me?"( Well it is simple because we can not include all the scenarios in a generalization.)
-Not sure I think it was for you.

-'You take an everyday definition of imagination. That is not what I am talking about. We do not need to imagine aliens to account for rules of evidence. This is the STEP definition: "To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one's own.""
-No those were just real life examples of what imagination can produce. I never offered a definition on Imagination.
Imagination is our ability to make "unorthodox" connections between facts and arrive to ingenious conclusions and perspectives.

-"Imagination played a role in the history of philosophy and means something like: to imprint. We need that to order impressions we get from sense data and literally 'make sense' of them. We need it to form ourselves a world. You skip this whole conundrum between the rationalists and empiricists and just put your eggs in the empiricist basket."
-You need to understand that Imagination includes many different mind properties that when combine we identify the result as imaginative. But those properties alone and their contributions are far from not making the cut and being recognized as imaginative.
The fact is that empirical input is fundamental for every single one of them. In addition to that, in order for imagination be be epistemically or philosophical or logically valuable....the produced results still need to be objectively evaluated.
This is why I insist in the fundamental nature of our Observations and Objective verifications.
This is a good like to check all those different types of imagination...and what we call imagination.
https://www.teachthought.com/learning/types-of-imagination/

Imagination played a role in the history of philosophy and means something like: to imprint. We need that to order impressions we get from sense data and literally 'make sense' of them. We need it to form ourselves a world. You skip this whole conundrum between the rationalists and empiricists and just put your eggs in the empiricist basket. — Tobias

-No no no I don't deny that........I only point out that those eggs NEED to be put in a basket or else you can not distinquish a mad man from an imaginative one.

We certainly need imagination when drafting criteria for what counts as evidence. Accepting something as evidence entails counter factual reasoning: given information that points to a situation being a situation of Y, can it still be a situation of X? Or does this information conclusively prove Y? — Tobias

-Not that much, what we mainly need is Symbolic Language (a capability of our Lateral Thalamus ), our ability to observe and reason. Sure If you equate abstract thinking with Imagination, then I can accept your claim, but then again imagination is defined as something more than a basic mental capability.
I think that you need to define the term without including every mental properties that happens to process symbolic language.

There are no 'rules of reality'. there is not rulebook given from the sky to tell you what reality is or isn't. — Tobias

The rules of reality are not prescribed if you think that this is what my phrase implies(I thought it was obvious). We as agents describe the emergent rules that natural processes produce. i.e. there is a reason why you can only exit your appartment by using a door or a window.
The electromagnetic cohesion of molecules produce this "rule" and you need to take it in to respect it in your everyday interactions.

especially since reality itself is a purely abstract concept devoid of any material content. — Tobias

-You are confusing the map with the territory. The term "reality" is a concept, but rules about this reality are facts and their properties that are a part of the territory.

Moreover, you are incoherent on your own terms because you define imagination contrary to reality. — Tobias

-No I didn't. My point was really simple. Any claim based on imagination needs to be verified by what we see in reality....Imagination can be a really good way to connect pieces and arrive to new information that are true about reality, but without objective verification they are useless.
GrEAT EXAMPLES:
Einstein's imaginative idea on relativity was accepted AFTER the english astronomer verified it objectively through empirical means.
Peter Higgs imaginative idea on a Bozon was verified 60 years after CERN verified the energetic footprint of that particle.
You need to understand that imagination is nothing without Objective verification....well it is something we call it...."crazy people".


-"Without imagination you as an artist would be out of business as well, so they seem equally important. It does not make sense to prioritize one over the other. As Kant stated: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions (sense impressions TA) without concepts are blind."
-Of course they are equally important in my work but not equally fundamental. Without objective verification and compatibility to reality's rules, those ideas are useless.
Let me put it differently.
The imaginative nature of an idea (how wild or how fancy or how amazing it sounds) bares no weight in how epistemically or instrumentaly valuable it is. The quality by which we make this evaluation is Objective verification...not Imagination.(only is movies !).
After we evaluate an idea as knowledgeable or wise...then can see the important role in it.
But that is like drawing a circle around the arrow. For every imaginative idea that hit the bulls eye they are thousands that led their creators at stray, because they denied the role of objective verification.

Not all axioms and principles are the product of piecing things together in unusual orders. Some are just descriptions of our ability to use symbolic language.

Because you measure advance in metaphysics with the wrong yardstick. You want them to be displayed by evidence. However, metaphysics (epistemology) questions when evidence needs to be given, what can count as evidence, under what circumstances etc. Metaphysics informs our worldview and therefore questioning it from a certain worldview will lead to failure. You are asking the wrong question. As for "our Philosophy", I have no idea what you mean. Philosophy is not yours. Your division between history of philosophy and philosophy displays something else. An unhistorical view of philosophy, i.e., what is shown is your metaphysics. You think the history of a certain something is unimportant for the determination of that certain something, a claim I would contest. — Tobias

-No No No. Metaphysics is the way for adding frameworks in to our Philosophy or Science...this is the only goal of metaphysics. If that wasn't its goal...then we would be talking about Hollywood scenarios or religious dogmas.......

-"Metaphysics informs our worldview and therefore questioning it from a certain worldview will lead to failure."
-Only if they can arrive to wise conclusions (epistemically verified) one can then justify them as informative.
Metaphysics is what we do in science and philosophy in order to expand our epistemology or wisdom.
You seem to believe that metaphysics is a way to use Philosophy as an excuse for accepting unfounded worldviews(correct me if I am wrong).
Its not I who uses a wrong yardstick, you are ignoring the standards and criteria of what claim or question qualifies as philosophical or not.

-"You want them to be displayed by evidence. However, metaphysics (epistemology) questions when evidence needs to be given, what can count as evidence, under what circumstances etc."
-Again not true. Metaphysics is what we do when we lack the evidence. But our starting point must ALWAYS be inside our established epistemology, free from logical fallacies and in agreement with Logic.
Evidences are necessary only when a metaphysical conclusion attempts to become Philosophy (wise claims) or Science (Knowledge).
If it remains with unknown an unknown epistemic value, it can never be acknowledge for its wisdom so it will remain metaphysical for the time being.

Metaphysical worldviews are the claims that "cheated" and forced their way in Frameworks. They took advantage of human existential and epistemic anxieties and they enjoyed a spot in Philosophy for many years pretending to offer wisdom or knowledge about the world.
Science and Logic have change that.

As for "our Philosophy", I have no idea what you mean. Philosophy is not yours. — Tobias

Our Philosophy refers to this human construction, a methodology(s) by which we are able to arrive to wise claims. Metaphysical claims that do not have that capability are not part of our Philosophy....like frameworks that have unverified knowledge value are not part of our Science.

-" Your division between history of philosophy and philosophy displays something else. An unhistorical view of philosophy, i.e., what is shown is your metaphysics."
First its not mine division. Chronicling (reproducing philosophical claims) is not Philosophy.
Mario Bunge in his book "Philosophy in Crisis", outlines the problem of many people using Historical "statements" as an Argument from Authority fallacy to reproduce unwise metaphysical conclusions.
Its like having Alchemists claiming Alchemy to be scientific just because it is part of Chemistry's History.
Philosophical claims SHOULD rise and fall on their own merits.
Nobody is really an expert in metaphysical opinions so we should never accept metaphysical claims of the past just because their author is a celebrity now. Metaphysics refers to opinions that are currently unfalsifiable, because they go beyond our current knowledge by definition.
Those claims that originate from our epistemology and respect Logic are more credible and this is the only evaluation we can do. If we are able to verify the claim it self, then its no longer metaphysical but epistemical and this is the ultimate goal for evvery metaphysical claims.

-"You think the history of a certain something is unimportant for the determination of that certain something, a claim I would contest."
No I think, like in the case of imagination, we can only verify which historical claims are philosophical or not through their ability to be produce wisdom while they are supported by knowledge.
History alone is not a sufficient excuse to argue in favor of a position....that is a logical fallacy (Appeal to tradition/from Age).

I see here that you have a very distorted misconception on what Metaphysics is or SHOULD be. This misconception is common and allows all type of pseudo philosophy to sneak in Philosophy and pollute the body of our inquiries.

I completely agree with your statement: a living person cannot talk about non-existence, because he has no idea what it is at all. Some people compare nothingness to a dream, but I think this is also wrong.

. Simple organic molecules can be made without detailed knowledge. But a virus, not even a DNA molecule, can't be created in a lab. — Hillary

All we do is place certain elements in proximity to others under certain conditions . We have discovered from trial and error that this leads to the formation of the molecules we desire. But the dynamics necessary to allow these molecules to stick together are akin to the guiding function of a dna strand in conjunction with the cellular environment. We don’t create these dynamics any more than we create dna. In both case , we combine and recombine what has already been created.

All we do is place certain elements in proximity to others under certain conditions . We have discovered from trial and error that this leads to the formation of the molecules we desire. But the dynamics necessary to allow these molecules to stick together are akin to the guiding function of a dna strand in conjunction with the cellular environment. We don’t create these dynamics any more than we create dna. In both case , we combine and recombine what has already been created. — Joshs

We can't create the circumstances to let a DNA molecule appear or a cell or a neuron, or a form of life. To create life you need life in the first place.

Of course there is no magic involved, but the point is, we can't create life. Life can only evolve naturally — Hillary

Yes, life evolves naturally , and the human capacity for technological invention belongs to that natural
order of evolution. Our aims and goals further the evolution of the complexity of nature. The entire history of cosmology which leads to the creation of more and more complex inorganic forms, which led to the emergence of living things, which led to the emergence of human cultural evolution, is a process of the interaction of events taking place in more and more interesting ways, which means on a more and more accelerating
time scale. A the level of human culture we call that the progress of knowledge, but it is continuous with the levels of evolution that preceded it.

For humans to ‘create’ life , molecules or anything else is not to duplicate an earlier time scale of evolution. On the contrary, all our inventions move us forward to higher levels of complexity, over shorter and shorter time scales(‘knowledge’ that only accrues , and only can be utilized, over millions of years obviously doesn’t have the same usefulness as that same knowledge that is operable over a time scale of minutes. If creating life means a return to much slower and less
complex time scales , the. that would be akin to killing oneself so that one’s body could decay and the simpler arrangement of molecules that emerges from its decay
could then be allowed to re-assemble itself into a new living organism. I realize this example is different from creating life de novo, but my point is that we only think the concept of creating life represents some kind of achievement of knowledge because we are confusing the goals of human technology and knowledge with the ‘goals’ of earlier , slower and simpler scales
of pre-human and pre-living evolution. To create life simply means to wipe us out in order to regress to an older time scale. It is essentially returning to a past in which we didn’t exist yet.
It isnt life we are interested in creating , it is the further evolution of our own level of knowledge complexity we desire. What we already do every time we innovate is much more interesting therm the original creation of life , because it sits atop of that creative achievement and builds much further from there. We dont need to build from scratch ‘consciousness’ or the creative spark that the gods allegedly provided. Creativity is not the product of an entity , substance , being , organism. It flows through these but is an ontological and metaphysical a priori. Another name for it is time. The gods didn’t create time , time created the gods.

Yes, life evolves naturally , and the human capacity for technological invention belongs to that natural
order of evolution. Our aims and goals further the evolution of the complexity of nature. — Joshs

Nonsense. That what comes from our hands and minds is not to further evolution. Evolution of life, a freely developing process, is a different process than what we let freely develop in a lab or anything coming out of it.

We can't create the circumstances to let a DNA molecule appear or a cell or a neuron, or a form of life. To create life you need life in the first place. — Hillary

And to create knowledge you need life , and to have life you first must have an inorganic word. Human creativity is not backward looking. We don’t recapitalw what already happened , and the levels of evolutionary complexity that preceded humans and human knowledge creation.
Everything we invent is forward-looking, designed to further the complexity we rest upon as living things and as cultural products. Understanding how life evolved
from pre-living matter would be a further evolution of culture.

For humans to ‘create’ life , molecules or anything else is not to duplicate an earlier time scale of evolution — Joshs

And that time scale of evolution is the only scale in which life evolved. Nothing coming out of the hands of evolved life is life.

And to create knowledge you need life , and to have life you first must have an inorganic word. Human creativity is not backward looking. We don’t recapitalw what already happened , and the levels of evolutionary complexity that preceded humans and human knowledge creation — Joshs

As long as we can create the circumstances in which live evolves, we haven't created life. As life itself is part of the circumstances we can't create it, no matter how a programmed version in a computer looks like it.

Nonsense. That what comes from our hands and minds is not to further evolution. Evolution of life, a freely developing process, is a different process than what we let freely develop in a lab or anything coming out of it. — Hillary

Is that because we have ‘free will’ , and that is somehow split off from, special and unique with respect to previous scales of evolution ? We dont choose to will , we find ourselves willing , and this birthing of the new happens this way with pre-organic matter. No element, particle , process , object remains self-identical from
moment to moment. A particle is a singularity, a differentiation. For the sake of convenience , physics has assumed the concept of law-governed deterministic objects with persisting properties and attributes , but this is just a useful abstraction

To create life simply means to wipe us out in order to regress to an older time scale — Joshs

That's what creating death is.

As long as we can create the circumstances in which live evolves, we haven't created life. As life itself is part of the circumstances we can't create it, no matter how a programmed version in a computer looks like it. — Hillary

For me the issue isn’t ‘can we create life’, but why would we want to? Would you want to create the big bang, as opposed to understanding it or creating a computer
model of it ? Would that be useful to you? We don’t , and can’t , recreate the past because we take our past along with us. The past comes already pre-interpreted by our present. That is why our past is always ahead of us.

For the sake of convenience , physics has assumed the concept of law-governed deterministic objects with persisting properties and attributes , but this is just a useful abstraction — Joshs

All processes are completely determined, no matter how complex. That's not for a sake of convenience, but it's how it is. If we are not even able to make a neuron appear, then a form of life won't appear. Computers might have unforeseeable processes as outcome, but they still stem from a program. Life isn't programmed.

For me the issue isn’t ‘can we create life’, but why would we want to? Would you want to create the big bang, as opposed to understanding it or creating a computer
model of it ? Would that be useful to you? We don’t , and can’t , recreate the past because we take our past along with us. The past comes already pre-interpreted by our present. That is why our past is always ahead of us — Joshs

Indeed, why should we want to if we can't. Why not being satisfied with life that's there and taking care of it? To create life we need to create a new big bang! Needless to say, that's too much!

All processes are completely determined, no matter how complex — Hillary

Life isn't programmed. — Hillary

If life is based on processes that are completely determined then in a sense, yes, they are programmed. In order to understand living and human creativity without needing gods , you have to abandon physical causal determinism. Physics won’t collapse if you do. We can still use it the same old way we have been , but we can be more insightful about its limitations and the ways it will need to change in order to keep up with the social sciences and philosophy. There are more and more physicists today who are ready to abandon determinism.

If life is based on processes that are completely determined then in a sense, yes, they are programmed. In order to understand living and human creativity without needing gods — Joshs

No, for that we don't need gods. Only to understand from where the basic ingredients come, gods are needed. And by understanding life, we understand the gods!

Being determined is different from being programmed.

, you have to abandon physical causal determinism. Physics won’t collapse if you do. We can still use it the same old way we have been , but we can be more insightful about its limitations and the ways it will need to change in order to keep up with the social sciences and philosophy. There are more and more physicists today who are ready to abandon determinism. — Joshs

Physical causal determinism applies to all levels of complexity. Free will has to be a determined will. Only other will can take away it's freedom, and because we interact with other wills and the world, no will is completely free.

Free will has to be a determined will. — Hillary

If a free will is determined , does this mean that you reject the concept of evil? From a deterministic perspective , what are the causes of morally wrongful acts?

Well, there is a false sense of choice in such questions as obviously positing whether one should exist or not is from the bias of a state of already existing to posit the question in the first place.

Non- existing you never was nor would ever be aware of the potential to exist or any of the inquiries that comes with being sentient. The question is a bit redundant as both choices are irreconcilable with one another - you are uninformed on what it is like to not exist and non existent not you is uniformed on what it would ever be like to exist. The difference being that in “existence” you have choices regarding whether to continue to exist or not. While non-existence only offers more “non existence” as a “non-option” which is “not available” to “no one.” The reason I use the quadruple negative is to highlight the absurdity of projecting “self” on the non-existent.

A reason to exist is well “what better do ‘you’ have to do with your time? - as only in this state are you a you with time to kill.

Furthermore there are parts of you that are indivisible and indestructible for the entirety of the universe - your atoms, your energy which you ingest and excrete at a fairly constant rate. The hard problem of what makes you you in this respect and what sustains your continuity as a conscious being is more interesting but so far we have fallen very short of answering exactly what the true nature of sentience is.

As far as a I know you and a Crystal are similar in that neither of you chose to exist as a transient, structured, ordered complexity of material with particular properties unique to your makeup, that is was manifested by a certain set of ore existing natural conditions you had no control over. And we don’t ask why crystals should exist they simply do as a product of common and non-unique processes , just as sex and gestation and nurture.