As soon as a lifeform demonstrates intent as a consequence of being self-aware, conscious and intelligent, rather than a creature driven via pure instinct imperative only, then at that point, intelligent design reduces evolution to a very minor side show for such individuals. — universeness

I think you exaggerate the difference between advanced intelligence and baseline intelligence. Instinct is not pure in the sense that humans, no less than comparatively more simple organisms, possess instincts that are essential to survival. When we recoil from the fast approach of a flying object, the autonomic system is processing info no less than when we reflect deeply upon, say, a complex moral dilemma. The difference, I believe, consists in the resolution of the cognitive processing per unit of time. Deep reflection is high-res processing whereas instinct is low-res processing.

If evolution, during the simple organisms period of an environment, involves instinctual info processing, albeit low-res, then intentionality permeates this period of evolution no less than it does when higher organisms appear.

"Creator," in my context, means perceived "close simulation of 'creator of the universe.'" — ucarr

How is it a simulation of the creator of the universe?

The textbook critique of Descartes' dualism is that by dividing the world into mind and matter, he loses the capacity to explain how mind and matter interact. He cannot explain how it is that a mind manages to raise a hand, nor how a tipple renders a mind insensible.

This critique may be applied to any dualism. So here, the dualism is the evolving physical world on the one hand and intentionality through intentionality on the other. You juxtapose quantity and quality in one thread, and then attempt to solve the dilemma by giving primacy to quality; in another thread you puzzle over the juxtaposition of object and subject.

What I would draw attention to is that inevitably, if one commences with a juxtaposition, thereby constructing a dualism, then one should not be surprised to find oneself in a world divided.

That is the inevitable, logical, outcome of this sort of approach.

Of course, the out, for all three of you, is god. But then there is the problem of invoking god as the solution to a philosophical problem - he can do anything, and hence explains nothing.

@Quixodian takes a similar, although more nuanced, line.

The upshot is that I find not just the present arguments, but this very way of attempting to explain things, from juxtaposition, quite unconvincing not just at the level of the argument presented, but as a method.

How is it a simulation of the creator of the universe? — Michael

One of my important ideas is that flesh and blood human and incorporeal spirit God are entangled. I label this entanglement God Consciousness.

The thesis here plots a course of human development wherein something that looks like a convergence of the human and the super-human occurs.

Just as a sophisticated cyborg might one day pass for organic sentient, an advanced technology might one day pass for nature.

All of this speaks to the notion passage through the borderland of progressively seamless entanglement elaborates the origin story of the new epoch.

Origins are entangled rather than discrete.

So here, the dualism is the evolving physical world on the one hand and intentionality through intentionality on the other. — Banno

Here we're grappling with the origin story of progress by design. Is the power of design extrinsic to material objects?

I think any notion of sentience arising from a material substrate requires the power of design to be intrinsic to material objects. Nuclear physics ascertains intricate order prior to sentience. An attempt to deny this mandates denying atoms and molecules pre-date living organisms.

Denial of sentience arisen from material objects mandates sentience-to-sentience reproduction of living organisms. This leads directly to a super-natural deity as creator.

Quantum mechanics strongly suggests seamless entanglement of past_present_future as a general feature of all origin stories.

I was not sufficiently impressed by the OP to submit the few drafted comments I'd made, although now I've been co-opted, I might as well.

My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

Agree that intentionality is a fundamenal characteristic of organisms, and can't be solely accounted for in terms of lower-level sciences such as physics and chemistry. Intentionality or 'aboutness' is one of the characteristics of all living organisms that can't be reduced to lower-level laws.

But disagree that the universe is machine-like or mechanistic, because machines are human artefacts and are assembled and operated by an external agent (namely, humans). Mechanism is one of the leftovers of Enlightenment materialism.

In a universe both eternal and mechanistic, probability plus evolution makes it inevitable life will appear.

If a universe has as one of its essential features the inevitability of life, then it has as concomitant essential features internalized intentions and teleology.

If a universe has, in addition to the above essential features, evolution, then it’s inevitable life will evolve therein. This state of affairs will lead logically to an ever, upwardly-evolving teleology that, after enough time, will resemble a cosmic teleology that can, with reason, be called a creator. — ucarr

Whether the Universe is eternal is moot and it is not a falsifiable hypothesis unless you have observable or inferential evidence of its ending. I’ve already said that I don’t think the machine analogy is apt.

Where I find fault with Sagan's view is in his appeals to science to argue metaphysical conclusions (as Richard Dawkins and his ilk are prone to do, although I vastly prefer Sagan to Dawkins.) But I'm not going to launch into yet another criticism of that. I'll let well-known TV scientist Brian Cox lay out the point:

The textbook critique of Descartes' dualism is that by dividing the world into mind and matter, he loses the capacity to explain how mind and matter interact. He cannot explain how it is that a mind manages to raise a hand, nor how a tipple renders a mind insensible. — Banno

The problem with Descartes' philosophy is not positing the division of mind and matter, but of treating mind (res cogitans) as though it were something objective. Then it becomes something like a mysterious ectoplasm or 'thinking stuff' and all of the associated problems of how 'it' relates to 'the physical'. But it's not an hypthesis, more like an heuristic model.

What has tended to happen is that due to this confusion in Descartes' model, scientifically culture generally has tended to divide off the mental and the physical, and then try to explain the former in terms of the latter. Thereby hangs the entire sorry story of materialist philosophy of mind.

Hello Banno,

This critique may be applied to any dualism. So here, the dualism is the evolving physical world on the one hand and intentionality through intentionality on the other.

I am not a dualist: juxtaposing two things does not entail, in-itself, ontological dualism; which is the only type of dualism subject to your critique.

You juxtapose quantity and quality in one thread, and then attempt to solve the dilemma by giving primacy to quality

I am not saying, similar to Descartes, that quantities and qualities exist as two separate ontologies whatsoever; I am claiming that a quantity cannot produce a quality (but vice-versa is possible). I am a substance monist.

in another thread you puzzle over the juxtaposition of object and subject.

I am not sure as to what you are referring to here: could you elaborate?

What I would draw attention to is that inevitably, if one commences with a juxtaposition, thereby constructing a dualism, then one should not be surprised to find oneself in a world divided.

This is false: to juxtaposition is just to compare two things. It does not entail any form of ontological dualism whatsoever. A substance monist can compare any two properties they want and still claim that both are reducible to the same substance. The problem with substance dualism is that it is claiming there are two types of existence; which doesn’t work at all.

I can compare quantities and qualities and still claim that there is only one type of existence (i.e., monism).

Of course, the out, for all three of you, is god.

“Out” from what? I am providing, just like mainstream physicalism, a substance monist account of the world.

Also, I would like to note that, although I have mentioned the Universal Mind as God, it is entirely possible to argue cogently for that mind not being God (viz., there are arguments to be made for atheistic idealism).

But then there is the problem of invoking god as the solution to a philosophical problem - he can do anything, and hence explains nothing.

This is just a straw man. Banno, when did I ever say that the Universal Mind is omnipotent? In fact, I think that the universal mind is only the “most powerful” in the sense that it is reality; and there are many (and I mean many) things it cannot do (e.g., violate the laws of logic, manifest a flower on this table right now because it feels like it, rescue people in the form of miracles, etc.).

The upshot is that I find not just the present arguments, but this very way of attempting to explain things, from juxtaposition, quite unconvincing not just at the level of the argument presented, but as a method.

The point, in my case, is to demonstrate the falsity of what most people nowadays implicitly hold as true: that a quantitative world produces qualitative experience. What part of juxtaposition do you not like (in terms of a method)? Again, it doesn’t entail dualism (in itself).

The accusation that evolution entails teleology is common, and basically, with some nuance, wrong. — Banno

Entailment is a logical, not physical property, so one cannot logically deduce that event X will cause event Y, nor can one logically deduce event X will occur to fulfill purpose Y. What actually happens in the real world is known empirically, not through a series of syllogisms.

The question then is what links X to Y? Causation is a possibility. Teleos is a possibility. Neither answer is empirically provable.

But disagree that the universe is machine-like or mechanistic, because machines are human artefacts and are assembled and operated by an external agent (namely, humans). — Quixodian

A mechanistic model of the universe has limitations and flaws that shouldn't be ignored.

In a universe both eternal and mechanistic, probability plus evolution makes it inevitable life will appear. — ucarr

In my above quote, I populate the claim with attributes I think especially pertinent to the appearance of life on earth. I don't wish to suggest that, beyond the scope of the claim, mechanism expresses a dominant metaphysical truth permeating spacetime.

The question then is what links X to Y? Causation is a possibility. Teleos is a possibility. Neither answer is empirically provable. — Hanover

I think the collective of intentions and purposes, the animal kingdom, propagates a real environment of selection that dominates the empirical experiences of its survivors. This empirical experience grounds organizational thinking that is goal oriented. Goal-oriented thinking might not be logically connected to survival in the jungle, but strategic thinking is nonetheless an existential_empircial imperative.

Where is the boundary between intentional action and internally directed action?

Single celled organisms demonstrate internally directed action; do you believe such organisms act intentionally?

@Count Timothy von Icarus
@ucarr
When reading both of your responses to my posts, counter points were forming in my mind. I was building my arguments, so that I could take each point you both made and offer a response to each.
I will still do that if either of you would find that approach, the only fair way to progress our exchange. I have no doubt you will both have many interesting responses to my responses.

It then occurred to me that a better route may be to ask two 'connected' questions.
So, I though I would try that more simplistic route first.

1. Do you think the universe is deterministic? and if you do, I would appreciate a little detail as to why.
2. Is random happenstance real? Do you think there is 'intentionality' behind quantum fluctuations or are quantum fluctuations an example of that which is truly random?

If the universe is not deterministic and random happenstance is real, then does it not follow that a chaotic system becoming an ordered system which gets more and more complicated, due to very large variety combining in every way possible, can begin and proceed (eventually returning to a chaotic state via entropy) without any intentionality involved?

If the universe is fully deterministic, then to me, a prime mover/god/agent with intent etc becomes far more possible and plausible. For me personally, this would dilute the significance of life towards that of some notion of gods puppets. So, my personal sense of needing to be completely free, discrete and independent of any influence or origin, involving a prime mover with intent, will always compel me to find convincing evidence to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt,' that such notions are untrue.

I don't disagree with what you say. My larger point was to say that it is just as valid to posit a teleologucal basis for a link between event A to event B as it is to posit a causative basis.

Determinism demands A necessarily follows B as the result of an invisible causative force.

Fatalism demands A necessarily follows B as the result of an invisible purpose driven force.

Since both rely on a mysterious invisible force, it's no more rational to accept one or the other. And of course it need not be all one or the other. It could be some things are causative and others telelogical.

Single celled organisms demonstrate internally directed action; do you believe such organisms act intentionally? — Janus

I'm guessing internally directed action is activity inside the cell that is a response to its environment and, moreover, is beneficial to the cell.

Do I believe uni-cellulars act intentionally? Yes. I remember high school biology films showing uni-cellulars avoiding a charged probe acting in the role of a cattle prod.

One of my foundations here is belief that anything alive will act to stay alive because life cannot be indifferent to its environment.

The two-edged sword of living is that consciousness is the greatest invention of the universe and, concomitantly, life must entail experiencing pain for the sake of survival.

I suppose a sardonic definition of life consists of the claim: life is the ability to feel pain.

With equal melancholy I claim: intentions are the ability to feel pain.

Now we have our holy triumvirate: life_intentions_pain.

Your questions are wonderfully complex and thought-provoking.

Do you think the universe is deterministic? and if you do, I would appreciate a little detail as to why. — universeness

I think our universe has for one of its essential components a dimension of determinism. By positing determinism as a dimension I hope to elude the trap of a too-rigid determinism. I, like you, have no wish to be the puppet of an all-powerful, transcendent creator. By dimension of determinism I mean a structure of determinism widely variable in size and power, depending on environment and its sentient occupants. According to my thinking, the critical component for assessing the power and reach of an environment-specific determinism is logic. If my understanding is correct, in the game of chess, when a player gains the advantage, if henceforth that player makes no mistakes, meaning he does nothing to surrender his advantage, victory for that player is certain. At first glance, this truth about chess presents it as a game of rigid determinism. However, prior to the player gaining an advantage, we can ask if the outcome of the game was pre-determined. I don't think so. I use this example to claim there is an essential dimension of determinism in our universe. Without it, how could our lives possess any order and continuity? Does this relegate us to choosing between a range of choices, all of which are deterministic? I'm inclined to think the answer is "yes." If I'm right, then we understand in consequence the supreme importance of choices. If I'm wrong, and it's true some choices have consequences unknowable in advance, then such truly random variables mark the limits of science and philosophy. When truly random variables are in play, humans can neither understand the role of causation, if it exists, nor predict logical outcomes because, in the absence of causation, there is no detectable logic.

Is random happenstance real? — universeness

If I correctly understand random happenstance equals an event occurring without a cause, then my answer is no. How could an existing thing have no cause? If it causes itself, that's not random. If it doesn't cause itself, and if no other existing thing causes it, how can it exist? A causeless event, to my thinking, would have unfold in absolute isolation. It could have no intersection with any other form of existence. I don't believe such isolation is possible. If it is possible, absolute isolation occurs at a great removal from everyday life.

Do you think there is 'intentionality' behind quantum fluctuations or are quantum fluctuations an example of that which is truly random? — universeness

Since I don't have the foundation in scientific training nor the database of knowledge to make an informed opinion about the cause of quantum fluctuations, I'll have to venture a common-sense answer. The word "quantum" tells me quantum fluctuations are energy pulses that possess discrete boundaries and, also, these energetic particle fields are governed by the uncertainty principle. Furthermore, their appearance as virtual particles takes the form of particle-anti-particle pairs. Since both the form and the behavior of these fluctuations are not random, and also, the environment of these fluctuations is specific i.e., vacuous, I conclude that scientists can configure a network of components that empower them to produce quantum fluctuations on demand. This brings us to the understanding that quantum fluctuations can be produced and repeated on the basis of intent. From here we proceed to the conclusion that the production of quantum fluctuations by means of a recipe exemplifies quantum fluctuations intentionally caused.

If the universe is not deterministic and random happenstance is real, then does it not follow that a chaotic system becoming an ordered system which gets more and more complicated, due to very large variety combining in every way possible, can begin and proceed (eventually returning to a chaotic state via entropy) without any intentionality involved? — universeness

If our universe has no dimension of determinism, determinism being defined by me as logic_continuity, then how could order ever make an appearance?

A chaotic system (oxymoron) becoming an ordered system tells me that the dimension of determinism is both operational and influential with respect to the formerly chaotic non-system.

If the universe is fully deterministic, then to me, a prime mover/god/agent with intent etc becomes far more possible and plausible. For me personally, this would dilute the significance of life towards that of some notion of gods puppets. — universeness

I would share your abhorrence of the above, except I don't believe the universe is fully deterministic. I believe the universe is a super-market of choices and, moreover, there is no ultimate power guiding the sacred hand of choice. This means we're free to make either wise or absurd choices. If one tilts toward wisdom, however, the determinism of logic_continuity is a tolerable master.

For me personally, this would dilute the significance of life towards that of some notion of gods puppets. So, my personal sense of needing to be completely free, discrete and independent of any influence or origin, involving a prime mover with intent, will always compel me to find convincing evidence to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt,' that such notions are untrue — universeness

Don't make the mistake of conflating freedom with isolation. Lest you aspire to your own Godhead, accept forever the possibility of your submission to that which is greater than yourself. Isn't that why the anointed wash the feet of beggars?

That a system might be sufficiently complex so as to render its continuities and outcomes obscure, or even undecidable, does, to me, sound like a real possibility.

I know the gap separating me from some of my correspondents pertains to the question whether intent can exist and operate apart from earth’s advanced sentients.

The vision of complex systems populating our universe without authorship from a supervising creator well serves the desire to abolish a magisterial God pulling puppet strings controlling humans.

I suppose the claim such defiance by humanity has its source in the God being defied provides only cold comfort, if any at all. But, alas, that’s what I’m offering with my claim herein: humanity and its after-bears will continually upgrade its simulation of God’s power until the simulation becomes hard to distinguish from the source.

Determinism demands A necessarily follows B as the result of an invisible causative force.

Fatalism demands A necessarily follows B as the result of an invisible purpose driven force. — Hanover

Since both rely on a mysterious invisible force, it's no more rational to accept one or the other. — Hanover

I can see from the above that all rational creatures, seeking to find patterns within the landscape, wrestle with the question, "How does the world work?" As a matter of fact, "work" is a good example of the socialized approach to finding our independent way through the world. The lesson being: the world is a workplace.

I've never thought of causation as being invisible. When I see a tire rolling down a hill, I don't think of gravity as being an invisible force.

I believe the world accommodates order. I don't think of it as a machine looking to fill pre-defined functional spaces with appropriate components.

Is the continuity that shapes an individual's personal history mysterious?

Do I believe uni-cellulars act intentionally? Yes. I remember high school biology films showing uni-cellulars avoiding a charged probe acting in the role of a cattle prod. — ucarr

I'm thinking of intentionality as planning, as having reasons for action, not simply as response to environments. Thinking and deliberate action: I believe some animals can do it, so it's not only a human thing.

I'm thinking of intentionality as planning, as having reasons for action, not simply as response to environments. — Janus

You're right to point out the distinction. It's important. I don't think the uni-cellulars, after receiving a shock, plodded forward in the same direction they had been going, back towards the prod. Instead, they continued moving away from the prod. Reaction is not intentional, but avoidance is.

I think we can question whether foraging around for food, even in the absence of a deliberate pattern, exhibits a baseline version of intention to survive. Let's say the flailing of the cilia of the uni-cellular is due to autonomic nerve impulses. If the ability to eat and survive is automatic rather than willful, we have a uni-cellular sharing vitality status with a virus. Memory tells me the quasi-life label applied to the virus is not applied to the uni-cellular. Perhaps this distinction doesn't imply intention. Does it imply intention-adjacent?

For now, I'll continue to argue that logic_continuity_order_self_intention form an entangled chain of vitality that insures the possibility (even if not the actuality) of life, and thus a logic-bearing universe will upwardly progress through evolving stages of intentionality. All of this is to say that a cohesive universe is never devoid of the means of intention.

Thank you for your detailed and interesting response and for your kind words in the first sentence of it.

On your proposal that determinism exists as an 'aspect'/dimension of our universe and perhaps, so does random happenstance.

According to my thinking, the critical component for assessing the power and reach of an environment-specific determinism is logic. — ucarr

In your game of chess scenario,

If my understanding is correct, in the game of chess, when a player gains the advantage, if henceforth that player makes no mistakes, meaning he does nothing to surrender his advantage, victory for that player is certain. — ucarr

I agree that if the player who has gained a state of advantage in the game and who then makes no mistakes, then under the rules of chess, it can be determined/predicted with a strong conviction level, that that player will win the game. But, the 'unexpected' can occur, the player who was going to win might choose to lose the game deliberately for a reason which is never revealed. An unexpected event might prevent the game from completing. Perhaps one of the players suddenly dies of a heart attack or the game pieces suddenly all get knocked off the board by a falling object from the ceiling, etc, etc. So the deterministic aspect can get nullified by an unexpected, undeterminable event. Does such a scenario show that random happenstance is also an aspect of the universe?

If determinism and random happenstance are both aspects of the universe then the question, will always become one of which one is most fundamental/came first/has dominance?

How could an existing thing have no cause? If it causes itself, that's not random. If it doesn't cause itself, and if no other existing thing causes it, how can it exist? A causeless event, to my thinking, would have unfold in absolute isolation. It could have no intersection with any other form of existence. I don't believe such isolation is possible. If it is possible, absolute isolation occurs at a great removal from everyday life. — ucarr

How does your theism deal with this?
If the universe is deterministic, then free will is an illusion, and we are puppets whose status as puppets is being deliberately, and nefariously (imo), divinely hidden from us. If an omniscient prime mover can 'harden Pharaoh's heart,' then this universe serves no function, other than the proposal that an omniscient/omnipotent decided that it, + the cosmos, was a superior state, to it alone, which is self contradictory, as if it had a need to create via its own intent, then it could not have been complete, so did not qualify for the omni status.

I would share your abhorrence of the above, except I don't believe the universe is fully deterministic. I believe the universe is a super-market of choices and, moreover, there is no ultimate power guiding the sacred hand of choice. This means we're free to make either wise or absurd choices. If one tilts toward wisdom, however, the determinism of logic_continuity is a tolerable master. — ucarr

This sounds quite reasonable but I cannot find a place in the 'logic' of it, for your personal theism. Perhaps you could offer me a little more detail, on the role in your thinking, your personal theism plays, in relation to this thread.
Your theism seems to be positing a 'less powerful, not omni,' existing transcendental, esoteric force than the abrahamic style gods such as Allah or Jehovah.

A chaotic system (oxymoron) becoming an ordered system tells me that the dimension of determinism is both operational and influential with respect to the formerly chaotic non-system. — ucarr

I agree, and I do accept that placing 'chaotic' beside 'system' is an oxymoron. If I drop a pen anywhere on Earth then it will fall, rather than rise, so, what happens to objects based on the cause and effect ordering can indeed be deterministic, but such classical thinking completely breaks down at the sub-atomic level of quantum physics. I am not suggesting that retrocausality is real, I simply don't know. But, I do think there is more and more evidence that entanglement, superposition and quantum tunnelling, are real and these do demonstrate that the universe is a lot more complicated than classical physics revealed. What teleology do you find in entanglement, superposition or quantum tunnelling?
I know that's a very complicated question, so I pose it merely to highlight the thought, rather than in expectation of you offering the succinct, detailed and peer reviewed scientific paper, required to even start to answer it.

Don't make the mistake of conflating freedom with isolation. Lest you aspire to your own Godhead, accept forever the possibility of your submission to that which is greater than yourself. Isn't that why the anointed wash the feet of beggars? — ucarr

I think the term 'greater than' can become very complicated indeed. There are simple measures that can be described in such ways, but how about a question such as which is greater? The human wish to be free of the notion of subservience, to proposed supernatural intent or the comfort the theist gets, from the idea that one or more supernatural entities exist, which are truly greater than humans in every way conceivable, but still needed to create us, without, it seems, any responsibility for what happens to us.

That a system might be sufficiently complex so as to render its continuities and outcomes obscure, or even undecidable, does, to me, sound like a real possibility. — ucarr

I would say scientific findings such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, would support this.

The vision of complex systems populating our universe without authorship from a supervising creator well serves the desire to abolish a magisterial God pulling puppet strings controlling humans.
I suppose the claim such defiance by humanity has its source in the God being defied provides only cold comfort, if any at all. But, alas, that’s what I’m offering with my claim herein: humanity and its after-bears will continually upgrade its simulation of God’s power until the simulation becomes hard to distinguish from the source. — ucarr

It seems to me that what you type here, could be argued, as supporting the view that god is no more than a placeholder ideal of humankind, a human creation of mind. An imagined measure, than humankind (even if it merges at some point, with it's own tech creations such as AGI(artificial general intelligence) and perhaps even if AGI produces ASI (artificial super intelligence)) will, as long as it exists, asymptotically aspire towards becoming. As an atheist, I am willing to accept that, especially if the alternative is accepting my status as an unwilling puppet of supernatural intent.

Hello, Universeness,
Just checking in briefly to let you know my work schedule might delay me a bit in getting back to you on your important, thought-provoking questions. Have no doubt, however, I will soon be sharing my responses with you.

:up: At your convenience sir! I look forward to your continued insights.

Do I believe uni-cellulars act intentionally? Yes. I remember high school biology films showing uni-cellulars avoiding a charged probe acting in the role of a cattle prod.
— ucarr

I'm thinking of intentionality as planning, as having reasons for action, not simply as response to environments. Thinking and deliberate action: I believe some animals can do it, so it's not only a human thing. — Janus

Until now, I had lost sight of by best counter-argument to your important premise (in bold): that there is a categorical distinction between autonomic response and elaborately reasoned response.

If evolution, during the simple organisms period of an environment, involves instinctual info processing, albeit low-res, then intentionality permeates this period of evolution no less than it does when higher organisms appear. — ucarr

The is my counter-premise (to your premise). Below is my supporting argument.

When we recoil from the fast approach of a flying object, the autonomic system is processing info no less than when we reflect deeply upon, say, a complex moral dilemma. The difference, I believe, consists in the resolution of the cognitive processing per unit of time. Deep reflection is high-res processing whereas instinct is low-res processing. — ucarr

This means that the uni-cellular, recoiling from the electrically-charged probe, or the human, recoiling from dust in a sudden sand storm, are acting intentionally under control of the autonomic nervous system. In each case, the sentient has reason for action, apprehends a plan of action and executes this plan of action towards a goal, in this case, preservation of well-being.

Under superficial examination, autonomic responses appear not to be intentional. I think this appearance is due to the extreme quickness of the response. It seems as though there's not enough time to think about what to do; there's only time to act without thinking. We know, however, that autonomic responses involve info processing, just as careful deliberations involve info processing. The difference is the volume of info processed per unit of time, i.e., it's the resolution of the info processing that differs. Without behavior-specific instructions from the neural networks of the brain sent to the nerve-fiber networks of the muscles, how could a situation-appropriate autonomic response to potential harm be enacted? Since the info processing, conducted at the speed of light, greatly compresses the info down to a minimum of code, short-term memory of the event lies at the cognitive baseline: the instinctual. This stands in contrast to deliberative reflection which affords copious info code more easily remembered.

If determinism and random happenstance are both aspects of the universe then the question, will always become one of which one is most fundamental/came first/has dominance? — universeness

Let’s not conflate “random” with “uncontrolled.” The sense of “random” that best serves your thesis (as I see it): that the universe evolves life without the provident hand of a super-natural creator, involves the statistical sense: equal chances of occurrence regarding multiple possibilities. In this situation, a specific outcome cannot be predicted. Does this mean the outcome is not controlled beforehand? No. The outcome, we know beforehand, has a range of possible outcomes. There is still systematic control beforehand, albeit not precise.

In a situation with infinite possible outcomes, we know nothing beforehand. Does this mean the outcome is not controlled beforehand? No. The outcome will express a cause and its effect. That’s still control, although opaque to reason beforehand.

If an unplanned event disrupts a planned event, and given unplanned events are logical possibilities, then that's not a random occurrence (in the sense of: happening without method). The system has always made allowance for it to happen. The disruption is due to a lack of advance planning (or the lack of the possibility of advance planning) aimed at preventing its occurrence.

How could an existing thing have no cause? If it causes itself, that's not random. If it doesn't cause itself, and if no other existing thing causes it, how can it exist? A causeless event, to my thinking, would have unfold in absolute isolation. It could have no intersection with any other form of existence. I don't believe such isolation is possible. If it is possible, absolute isolation occurs at a great removal from everyday life.
— ucarr

How does your theism deal with this? — universeness

Great question.

My belief that a causeless thing could only originate in isolation coupled with my belief nothing, not even God, originates in isolation leads me to believe the existential entanglement of existing things permeates creation as a metaphysical truth. (This tells us QM and Scripture are not in conflict).

I cite scripture for authority supporting my thesis God has never been alone. My citation is The Trinity. God has always been tripartite. Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I am.”

Furthermore, that Jesus is God made flesh means Jesus causes God no less than vice versa. How else could Jesus be fully God? Again, I cite scripture: As it is above (in heaven), so it is below (on earth).

God is not dead. Instead, God is simulatable. Nietzsche may have over-reacted when he declared God dead. What he was observing in the nineteenth century is what we are still observing in the twenty-first century: humanity subsuming God. Science, math, metaphysics and other disciplines are making human approaches to sacred myth with actionable practices. Yesterday’s miracles of God are today’s cultural advances: the holy ghost has practical application in our global telecommunications systems. When Marx spoke of religion being opium for the masses, he foreshadowed religion’s transition into the spellbinding dramatics of motion pictures. What is the ascension of Jesus from the barricaded tomb if not quantum tunneling writ large?

At the end of his resurrection, when his re-ascension was imminent, Jesus, reviewing his three-year ministry, spoke to his disciples of the miracles performed. What he said is pertinent to forecasts about humanity’s future: “All of these things and more you will do.”

why posit an anthropomorphic creator of the universe, thereby invoking the problem of an infinite regress of creators, when you can go one step further and claim the universe has always existed? — ucarr

Only the element and story of the anthropomorphic creator is enough for a rational and honest being to reject it. Of course, this normally doesn't happen immediately even if one is a very rational and knowledgeable person. A whole religious culture is built since 2,000 ago and burdens us since our first baby steps in our never ending education and maturation as well as our domineering, oppressive, despotic, bossy way we have been educated, by our parents, school and society in general, and esp. for the older generations, have made it very difficult to lift this heavy burden off our backs. Indeed, this kind of education has very deep roots in our minds and consciousness. And it takes a lot of (philosophical) thinking to do that. For the last two generations of course, the burden is not so heavy since a lot of the old values have started fading out and education is much less oppressive.

I believe I'm quite rational --in fact I'm and always have been a rationalist as well as a realist person-- yet, it took me a lot of years to ask myself questions about the Christian God, like why is God referred to and depicted as a masculine and old person? Shouldn't God transcend genders and have no age at all? Wouldn’t be more logical that God --as Supreme Power and Creator-- be depicted as a light, which has no gender or age? Then, why God in the Bible constantly exhibits so many human characteristics and esp. negative ones, like rage, and is seeking revenge of or punishing people? Besides, isn't God who created Man? If Man has flaws, who is responsible for that? And so on and so one. My list contains a lot more of such questions, which all lead to one thing: Man has created God. Not the other way around.

This is not to make less of this great man, Carl Sagan, whom I really loved and love. (BTW, I watched half of the video you brought up.) But what I say is that one has not be a person of his caliber or listen to such a person to realize that the Bible together with God we are fed since our youth are just myths.

Let’s not conflate “random” with “uncontrolled.” — ucarr

When it comes to the issue of whether the universe, at its most foundational level of dynamism, ( the fundamental process(es) that forms it's existence) is deterministic and from an agent with intent or random with no intent whatsoever, random and uncontrolled are synonymous.

In this situation, a specific outcome cannot be predicted. Does this mean the outcome is not controlled beforehand? No — ucarr

This also provides zero evidence that such an outcome is controlled beforehand. We can only currently state that we don't know, which is the atheist position. You can slide this towards the weak or strong grouping of atheism. I personally favour the strong grouping.

The outcome, we know beforehand, has a range of possible outcomes. There is still systematic control beforehand, albeit not precise. — ucarr

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons, W and Z fields which carry the weak force, and gluon fields which carry the strong force.

What evidence do you have that suggests quantum fluctuations are under some source of systemic control? If you had such evidence, you would become world renowned, almost overnight. The only correct answer is that there is no such evidence.

In a situation with infinite possible outcomes, we know nothing beforehand. — ucarr

Infinity is an unproven concept it is not a measure.

If an unplanned event disrupts a planned event, and given unplanned events are logical possibilities, then that's not a random occurrence (in the sense of: happening without method). The system has always made allowance for it to happen. The disruption is due to a lack of advance planning (or the lack of the possibility of advance planning) aimed at preventing its occurrence. — ucarr

Do you think a mindless origin spark for the universe could have been prevented?
If all possible events in the universe could be accounted for, during a planned experiment then I would agree with you that 'random' does not exist, but such is not the case. You cannot even test speed = distance/time for all possible distances between 0 meters and 1 meter. It is impossible, within this universe, to exhaustively test anything, because of the number of possible events and the fact that we don't know what all the possible events are or the conditions under which they might all occur. To me, this suggests random happenstance exists and the universe is not fully deterministic, so omniscience is highly unlikely, as is the existence of god.

IMHO, the rest of your post is (perhaps on your part,) a 'romantic,' attempt at a god of the gaps style fitting with such as QM, that just does not fit.

My list contains a lot more of such questions, which all lead to one thing: Man has created God. Not the other way around. — Alkis Piskas

Absafragginlootly!

I will still do that if either of you would find that approach, the only fair way to progress our exchange. I have no doubt you will both have many interesting responses to my responses.

Seems plenty fair. I am more interested in the arguments against intentionality becoming intertwined with evolution and the ways in which evolution uses the same "terraced deep scan," model that Hofstadter identifies as a key element of consciousness, but this has more to do with my own private pet project of translating some of the insights of continental philosophy, and of Hegel, into the language of the modern empirical sciences.

This is of course aside the main point though, so maybe I will create a different thread on that sort of thing (e.g., the interplay between individual, group, and gene level selection, which I think are all irreducibly important and represent fractal recurrence, making an argument for seeing evolution through the lens of fractional dimensionality.)

1. Do you think the universe is deterministic? and if you do, I would appreciate a little detail as to why.

I wish I could give a good yes or no answer, but it depends on how "deterministic," is meant. Do I think the universe exhibits law-like behavior such that what comes before dictates what comes after? Yes.

Do I think the universe is computable per current definitions of computability? I am split on this. Space-time appears to exhibit the properties of being a true continuum, which means it takes infinite real numbers to describe. If this is the case, then physics is not computable, but the jury is out on this. We may find out space-time is discrete, or that something like intuitionalism holds, vindicating Wheeler's"participatory universe." I also believe we may discover a new type of "computation-like" abstraction that works with real numbers, with infinites.

Do I think it is possible to completely predict what comes after based on what comes before, ala Laplace's demon? Probably not. First because strong emergence seems to exist. If the world IS computational in the current sense, then it appears that it lacks the information capacity to generate our world without strong emergence (Davies' proof and all, which suggests strong emergence is required for the universe to be computable).

Further, physics does not appear to actually be reversible, at the microscale (CPT symmetry was violated in 2012 but the Higgs Boson overshadowed it) and certainly not in the macroscale (thermodynamics). Most importantly, wave function collapse appears to be as "empirically real," as anything in nature. This means that physics gives us vast sets of possibilities that only become actualized over time. I don't buy the arguments for eternalism and find local becoming more compelling. But even for those who embrace deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, it's worth noting that unitary evolution is axiomatic, and is ditched in many attempts to unify physics.

So, I think the classical scale appears to be deterministic, but the quantum scale seems to be a source of essentially infinite amounts of new information. Thus, I think our conception of determinism simply fails, that our world is deterministic in some ways but not others. What is wanted is a dialectical fusion of our concepts of determinism and indeterminism.

So I guess that is a yes or a no depending on how you look at it.

2. Is random happenstance real?

Depends on how random is defined. Quantum mechanics appears to be stochastic, probabilistic. In that sense I would say yes, which implies contingency but contingency within a boundary of possibilities.

Do you think there is 'intentionality' behind quantum fluctuations or are quantum fluctuations an example of that which is truly random?

Again, it depends on the situation. Quantum interactions out in space? I don't see a role for intentionality. Quantum measurements in a lab? Yes, what interactions occur, when and how, appear to be guided by intentionality. I am definitely a believer in experimenters' "free choice," and frankly find varieties of superdeterminism that try to fix non-locality by removing free choice to be bizarre. But quantum events don't only occur in labs, they occur everywhere, so countless quantum outcomes do have a relationship with intentionality, one that is bidirectional.

That said, you can think about things like contextuality, the fact that it seems possible that QM removed the possibility of a single "objective world," that all observers can agree too (https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080), and question whether such a concept is even coherent without intentionality. Plenty of people are very committed to the idea of an objective world, but I'm not sure such a thing is even coherent without subjectivity.

If the universe is not deterministic and random happenstance is real, then does it not follow that a chaotic system becoming an ordered system which gets more and more complicated, due to very large variety combining in every way possible, can begin and proceed (eventually returning to a chaotic state via entropy) without any intentionality involved?

Sure. We have the concept of a Boltzmann Brain, a human brain, generating consciousness, that can form out of random thermodynamic (or quantum) fluctuations given enough time. But randomness need not generate such things either. A universe that behaves differently than ours doesn't produce life. In fact, the constants of physics, and the vanishingly unlikely low entropy of our early universe both appear to be necessary for life to exist. We can well imagine a universe with very similar physics to ours that collapses back down into a big crunch before life has time to develop.

So, the space of possibilities has to be consistent with life as we know it. Of course, pure randomness could produce life, but if the world was completely random we shouldn't expect to see so many regularities, or even be in the same place from moment to moment.

If the universe is fully deterministic, then to me, a prime mover/god/agent with intent etc becomes far more possible and plausible. For me personally, this would dilute the significance of life towards that of some notion of gods puppets. So, my personal sense of needing to be completely free, discrete and independent of any influence or origin, involving a prime mover with intent, will always compel me to find convincing evidence to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt,' that such notions are untrue.

Right, I just don't think we can make it a neat binary. Clearly, our world is deterministic in some senses. We don't drop our kids off at school and worry they might be adults when we pick them up in six hours. We don't throw potatoes into our soup and fear they will transform into rocks when they hit the water. There are bounds on the space of possibilities, but actuality also doesn't appear to crystalize out of these possibilities until just the time that it does so.

We cannot be free if there aren't bounds on possibility. Afterall, to be free means that when you do something, you expect it to have a certain result, or range of results. Otherwise, it's like we're playing a video game where we might have 12 buttons we can press, but the buttons do something different every time, with no way to predict the outcomes. We aren't free there because our choices are at best arbitrary, based on nothing. Freedom requires constraints, for one thing to flow from another in a way that is intelligible.


But the incredible fine tuning that appears to be required for life to exist, and for it to exist in a way where it can be free? That makes me think a creator, or some sort of natural teleology, seems more plausible.

Thank you for your detailed response to my post. You offer a balanced treatment of the issues involved and of the questions I posed. Plenty of food for thought for myself and other readers to ponder. :clap:

~~

I was not sufficiently impressed by the OP to submit the few drafted comments I'd made — Quixodian

Yeah, I also regret having entered into the discussion.

The problem with Descartes' philosophy is not positing the division of mind and matter, but of treating mind (res cogitans) as though it were something objective. — Quixodian

Yet there has been quite a bit of progress in explaining mind in physiological terms. So I'm not going to go along with that, and instead repeat the methodological point, missed by and unaddressed by @ucarr, that an ontological juxtaposition will lead to incommensurability. They might see it one day and move forward to Hegel. :wink:

When we recoil from the fast approach of a flying object, the autonomic system is processing info no less than when we reflect deeply upon, say, a complex moral dilemma. The difference, I believe, consists in the resolution of the cognitive processing per unit of time. Deep reflection is high-res processing whereas instinct is low-res processing. — ucarr

I agree they are both information processing. But the immediate response does not consist in reflection on the information. When there is reflection, the active outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, whereas the immediate response consisting in acquired habit, is much more predictable. For me, that is the salient difference between intentional action and simple internally directed action.