I know what "the game" stands for. This doesn't answer the question at all, it just says "it's an issue" — khaled

Existence cannot be nullified by what exists.

Uh huh. This doesn't mean the game SHOULD be played though which is what this post is about (ethics). Your second paragraph just sounds to me like "people are gonna have kids no matter what so whatever you say here doesn't matter." I agree, but that doesn't make procreation moral — khaled

I agree that we should not procreate. I disagree with the ethical perspective that supports it here. Negative ethics that has no corresponding positive ethics is an incomplete ethical perspective that results in nullifying existence. Drawing the conclusion that no one should exist if they have the option is not a workable philosophy - it’s a sign that we’re misinformed about how the world works.

You’ve arrived at what you think are the rules
— Possibility

And what other people think are the rules in the vast majority of cases but do not apply it to procreation out of hypocrisy — khaled

I get the frustration that those who say they live by the principles of autonomy, non-aggression and non-harm are ignorant of its application to procreation. My argument is that this is one of many reasons why these principles are flawed.

Interesting you make this point. Tell me, who does an antinatalist hurt? No one. Even if antinatalism is logically flawed it wouldn't hurt anyone. On the other hand who does procreation hurt? Everyone. This "rule" that makes a special case for procreation as opposed to other cases of handling others' resources is the reason we have to make rules to reduce the suffering of individuals in the first place. — khaled

Again, I am not against antinatalism as such. I am against the ethical perspective from which it is argued. The primacy of autonomy and individualism is harmful in practise, and no amount of antinatalism can prevent that.

"Potential" isn't a person. So you're not removing anything from anyone. So there are 2 choices here either:
1- You recognize that harm done is wrong even if the action that causes the harm is done before the person harmed exists
2- You find another way to explain why the genetic modification mentioned is wrong, because it's definitely not removing anything from anyone which you consider to be the definition for "harm." That was your critique of my scenarios right? That no individual is harmed? That's the case here too — khaled

I disagree that these are the only two choices. Anyone can interact with a potential child in a number of ways that we understand to be beneficial or harmful to the existing potential - including genetic modification, drug use, contraception, mother’s nutrition, alcohol and smoking, physical activity, etc. But the only interaction they can have with a possible child is to determine the value or significance of that possibility in relation to the potential or actual universe. So the only ‘harm’ one can do to a possible child is to deny (ignore or exclude) its value or significance in relation to those who exist, either potentially or actually.

1) No one has perfect knowledge of the game. Sure, you can try to educate people as much as possible, but there is inevitably trial-and-error in existence. The nuances are never cut-and-dry. Also, rules for one person doesn't necessarily apply to another person or apply to a specific situation. Or people just make mistakes, etc. But what this amounts to is people are being used in a bunch of trial-and-error situations. Knowing this, what is the justification to put people into a big trial-and-error experiment like that? Rather, if the autonomy of the future individual is respected, there is an ideal state of no-harm and no-force. That is not being born for that person. — schopenhauer1

Also, rooting ethics in autonomy is the only thing that actually respects a person as an individual and not just using them for someone else's agenda. — schopenhauer1

I’m not denying that rooting ethics in autonomy is the only thing that ensures everyone acts with respect to autonomy. I’m arguing that autonomy is not a workable principle in a universal sense in the first place. Even if you got everyone to play by these rules of yours, the only ideal state is simply not to play the game. But what if your rules and your whole understanding of the game is wrong? What if the game is not played by individuals at all?

You assume that existence is individual - but that’s only a perception. The way I see it, all of existence is an interconnected, collaborative effort that isn’t yet fully aware of itself. So autonomy is a misunderstanding based on ignorance, isolation and exclusion. The ideal of an ‘autonomous’ anything (country, individual, etc) is a gross misconception: one that generates more harm and force than most of us are willing to acknowledge. It is your assumption that ‘autonomy’ is the aim of the game that renders the game unplayable - not the game itself.

You are simply justifying a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are making it out like people MUST play the game. No, procreation is made at the individual level. Arguably, its one of the simplest things one can do. Simply do NOT procreate. Thus the whole game can be bypassed for a future person by not having them. My point was that people don't have the option to not play the game in the first place once born. It is pretty high-and-mighty of you or anyone else to assume that people should play the game in the first place, and then scold them for not following the rules that you thought are "good" for them. You know, because YOU deem it is "good" for them... Which, wait, didn't matter prior to their birth.. So here we are back at the fact that we are disrespecting people's autonomy to force them into an agenda (trial-and-error, and learn the rules). — schopenhauer1

No, I’m not saying that an individual must play the game at all. Procreation is not made at an individual level - it is always a connected and collaborative effort, and happens with or without conscious individual input. Don’t get me wrong - a conscious decision to procreate is a self-absorbed act of ignorance and irresponsible resource management, but it is NOT an act of force or harm on an individual. There is no ‘individual future person’ to be harmed at this point: there is only a connected and collaborative effort that lacks awareness.

At the point that you are self-aware and see yourself as an individual, you can choose to ignore, isolate and exclude at your leisure. You can get roped into a game within the game, with its own rules, and be convinced that these rules are ‘good’ for you, that being an individual is THE most important part of the game, and come to the conclusion that the game simply cannot be played by an individual according to these ‘good’ rules. But you’ve lost sight of the real game - one where the individual is simply a step towards maximising awareness, connection and collaboration...

I don’t expect you to be convinced - my perspective of the ‘real’ game is a minority view that directly questions foundational assumptions of social reality. But it gives me a workable knowledge of the game, at least. That’s a start.

Why would rendering the game unplayable be an issue? We already think it is moral to render the game unplayable in some cirucmstances, such as if a couple knows that their children are likely to have a terrible disease. In that case most say it is immoral to procreate — khaled

‘The game’ is existence, not just procreation. So rendering the game of existence unplayable IS an issue.

I don't think any set of rules built specifically to maintain the game is respectable or acceptable. "The game" Doesn't have a will or subjective experience. It cannot get hurt. People can. So anything that prioritizes the game over an individual is just plain wrong to me. Unless preserving the game is done WITH THE GOAL of helping the individuals — khaled

Determining a different set of rules doesn’t maintain the game - the game is being played, whether you like it or not - you just don’t understand what the rules are. You’ve arrived at what you think are the rules, even though you’ve found that following them renders the game unplayable, and so you’ve decided that the game should not be attempted anymore. But you have no control over the game. Whether you choose to prioritise your individual claim to autonomy over existence is up to you, but it won’t change the brute fact of existence, even if you choose not to play. The game will be played - you can try to work out what the real rules are, or you can stick with the ones you have that don’t work. People only get hurt in games when the players don’t follow the rules - not their own rules.

Ok so you're going to take that direction. My answer: I don't know. Now can you answer this: Is genetically engineering someone to suffer (say, by making them blind, deaf, and missing a leg) morally acceptable, and if not why? — khaled

Again, you’re removing something from someone whose potential is already recognised as a human being, with all that it entails. So what is it that is lost or removed in procreation? If you don’t know, then how is it similar to these analogies you’ve provided?

It doesn't. If you get it wrong you die. — ovdtogt

Then it isn’t trial and error. It’s more like a limiting factor on a particular process.

I meant how does it know what result is desired before the process of trial and error begins?

What do you think that ‘natural selection’ is?
— Possibility

trial and error. — ovdtogt

Trial and error is a process of problem solving that implies a desired result. What do you think is this ‘result’, and how does ‘natural selection’ know of this result?

Yes through 'natural selection' which you described as a nemesis. — ovdtogt

No, not through ‘natural selection’ - that’s the point. What do you think that ‘natural selection’ is?

No? Did life not evolve out of dead matter? — ovdtogt

No, it didn’t. I don’t need to repeat what @Metaphysician Undercover has explained so clearly.

A nemesis is an inescapable agent of someone’s or something’s downfall. Life cannot cause the downfall of dead matter.

Life evolved out of chemical reactions.

I can't speak for schopenhauer1 but at least for me the situation is more like: A majority of players agreed on a set of rules that would forbit making other players play the game if applied strictly but refuse to recognize that those rules apply to the case of procreation — khaled

My point is that the rules as ‘agreed’ cannot be applied strictly because this renders the game unplayable. If you believe there is a game to played, then you need to determine a different set of rules.

People are loss averse in all their dealings with others' stuff. Ex: If you found my credit card you wouldn't buy anything with it unless you had my consent. People are also loss averse when it comes to others' autonomy. Ex: You can't FORCE me to work a job. Even if I am completely broke. I see procreation as forcing someone you don't know to work a job because YOU like it, and making the cost of quitting extremely high as well. Not many would disagree with the job scenario being immoral but most disagree that the analogy fits procreation in a myriad of different ways. I'm curious to see why you think the analogy isn't apt. — khaled

I find it strange to see you frame it with reference to loss aversion. I get that you shouldn’t take away money that I have in return for something you think will be beneficial to me. I get that you shouldn’t try and force me to give up time that I have in order to earn a living, even if it will give me autonomy in return. You shouldn’t take away...I mean, try and force me to give up...I’m sorry - how does procreation relate to these two examples? What is it that is lost in procreation?

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

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

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

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

I've taken some time to think. So what I've found, and am here to state with certainty, that existence is therefore only provable insofar as human comprehension can be achieved. This means that existence so far is only provable with the human that can comprehend the universe the most, or the collective reasoning of it. — ep3265

I think that human comprehension relies, more than we’re often willing to admit, on a collaborative relationship with other human as well as non-human comprehension. We must trust in the comprehension of others, if we are to increase knowledge beyond our own empirical experience. It’s not the human who can comprehend the most, then, but the human who can maximise awareness, connection and collaboration.

How is any of the above without regard for time when time is one of the fundamental references for all those relations you've pointed out? — BrianW

Yeah, I didn’t explain that well. Scratch that. I’ll need to think about it some more.

Actions in real time are messier than ideals. If one respects autonomy of the individual, then you would not violate non-aggression and harm of another individual. However, in real life that is bound to happen. Sometimes the violation of harm of another, requires the aggression to prevent the harm. But that is because autonomy is being violated, so it still centers around autonomy and its violation. — schopenhauer1

What happens to the autonomy of the person to whom you act aggressively to prevent the harm? Autonomy for all isn’t possible - even if absolutely everyone agreed to uphold it without exception. So how can this be an effective principle?

Actions in real time don’t have to be messier than ideals - IF those ideals are possible to achieve. Aggression and harm are entirely dependent on the perspective of the person towards whom the act is performed. You cannot predict what might be deemed aggression (force) or harm according to someone else (and your argument that procreation is an act of force is a case in point). So even if it were possible for everyone to take all possible precautions to prevent aggression or harm, there would still be instances of aggression and harm. This tells me not that the world sucks and we should all prefer non-existence, but that your principles are fundamentally flawed. Non-aggression, non-harm and universal autonomy is not an ideal perspective of the universe. It doesn’t even exist as a possibility.

When upholding ethical principles negates the possibility of existence, there’s definitely something wrong - but it’s not with existence.

What I want to reiterate is "de facto" force onto someone. For example, sure people can choose not to work. They can choose to starve themselves, they can choose to be homeless, the can choose to hack it out into the wilderness, suicide. But these often lead to sub-optimal options. The de facto reality is the least sub-optimal, which for most is simply the situation the majority of society offers. This is a de facto reality. But what if none of these sub-optimal options are wanted, even the ones offered by social majority? — schopenhauer1

There are always more choices available to us than we may be aware of, and more than we are willing to choose from. The ‘optimal choice’ according to your principles is non-existence - which renders every available choice ‘sub-optimal’ in your view. There’s no point in me addressing the difference between de facto and physical force. The error is not in your argument, but in your principles.

It’s like throwing a tantrum in the middle of a game of solitaire because you’ve been playing it the way you think it should be played, but you realise that you’ll never win this way. Despite others trying to explain to you that it’s not how you play solitaire, you’re arguing that we shouldn’t make others play solitaire at all because you can’t win playing it the way you think it should be played. And you think it’s problematic that we continue to encourage others to play solitaire...

Or perhaps it’s more like sitting down in a restaurant and getting upset that your parents ‘de facto forced’ you to come here because your favourite meal isn’t on the menu. You’re still sitting at the table and eating, but loudly trying to turn away customers because the restaurant is ‘de facto forcing’ you to choose something other than the meal you really want to eat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m trying to decide if the planet earth is or is not part of evolution. Is that fragment that was part of the Big Bang not like a seed that requires ideal conditions to thrive? Many other planets/seeds came to rest on their orbit in a place that was not congenial to their growth. Of course that may have already happened, they thrived and died. But either way it was all random. Is the earth an example of survival of the fittest? — Brett

‘Survival of the fittest’ is a Darwinian notion of purpose, not impetus. It refers to the effect of natural selection in a way that suggests ‘survive and thrive’ as the ideal that everything is aiming towards. But we can’t ALL succeed at this, and we’ve since come to the terrible realisation that our efforts in this respect have been steering us rapidly towards failure.

Evolution seen as the result of an underlying creative impetus, on the other hand, suggests that ‘survival’ is unnecessary, that each ‘failure’ is a useful tool for success, and that the ‘ideal’ can be defined only in hindsight. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration leads to successful evolution. Natural selection defines the process of manifestation along the way - supposed ‘failures’ whose various relationships increase our capacity to ensure success for ALL.

I assume a purpose in actions required to survive. But a purpose for evolution, no, because it’s dependent on random mutations. — Brett

Evolution depends on random mutations: on a gene’s potential for change. But natural selection is dependent on the potential for survival in the manifestation of that change. So which of these is fundamentally necessary to existence: change or survival? This is why I feel the need to distinguish between evolution and natural selection.

So then, bear with me,

1) simplicity does evolve into complexity; humans evolve into more complex humans

2) the creative impetus is behind evolution

3) evolution is not about creating

4) humans don’t create more complex things, they evolve, which is not the same as creating. They’re tools of creation.

5) is creating a simple thing or complex thing? — Brett

Humans are tools of creation, but our awareness of the creative impetus enables us to also be conscious participants in creation at various levels. We say that a human cannot create a more complex thing than itself, but creativity isn’t just about one human creating a thing. A human (or any element of the universe) creates only insofar as they are aware of, connected and collaborating with this creative impetus of which they are a part. So when a human creates something, what they’re doing is manifesting a part of their relationship with the rest of creation. Integrating new information gained from interacting with what is manifest enables this relationship to evolve - to become more complex.

A complex thing has many intricate connections or parts. So, for me, creating is a simple process, without which there can be no complexity.

So you wouldn’t say that Darwinism assumes a purpose to survive, dominate and procreate?

Of course the demands must correspond to a broader understanding of reality. Any ethical system worthy of the name is based on a perceived truth. I would naturally try to convince people to subscribe to my understanding of reality since I believe it’s the truth (if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t have that understanding) and follow the commands that I think belong to a sound ethical system. I’m quite sure you do the same and even people who never tell others directly what they shouldn’t do, have a perception of valid ethical demands. — Congau

Well, I don’t believe any ethical demands are valid from an objective standpoint. Ethical demands fail to take into account the perspective of the person to whom you are making these demands. So at best, what you refer to as an ‘ethical demand’ is merely an expression of an ethical perspective. A sound ethical system in my book would enable you to understand why someone would choose to do what they shouldn’t, and to guide them towards doing what they should - without requiring you to do what you shouldn’t. Otherwise, how can it be the truth?

So I’m guessing then that from your perspective everything has a purpose, or at least is part of a whole with meaning. — Brett

That’s not what I’m saying here. If you say that natural selection operates at this level, then why would the rest of the universe that doesn’t support life continue to exist? It is Darwin’s natural selection that assumes a purpose to everything, not me. From my perspective, there is an underlying impetus to everything, but not a defined purpose as such. Everything is part of a whole with meaning, sure - the impetus is towards that meaning, whatever it happens to be.

Creativity is the process of understanding who we are by manifesting a part of who we are with which to interact from alternative perspectives, acquiring new information.

So your ultimate aim is to achieve non-existence?

This, I think, is an extremist version of Buddhism - one based on a misunderstanding of Buddha’s teachings and how they relate to practise. The way I see it, Buddha’s own asceticism was simply a demonstration of awareness - not a practical path to be followed for its own sake. It achieves nothing in itself - its purpose is to demonstrate the structure of existence for our benefit, by documenting the journey towards and beyond its limitations.

It’s a bit like ascetic monks in Christianity who practise self-flagellation. Withdrawing from existence is not a life lived with purpose if it doesn’t connect in some way with those of us who continue to exist. Buddha still manages to connect with existence. The rest of those monks are at best a re-confirmation of what Buddha/Jesus has already quite effectively demonstrated. So why go over the same ground? If Buddha burnt his hand on the stove and said to you ‘that’s hot, it burns’, do you need to then do the same thing?

The existence of a ‘Prime Mover’ points to the limitations of language structure, not to reality. We cannot have a verb, an action, without something to perform that action. This does not necessarily correspond to reality.

Consider the possibility that this ‘intelligence’ is simply a fundamental capacity to relate: to be aware, to connect and collaborate.

That might be true, but if we are brains in a vat we will never find out. — ovdtogt

How does that change anything you do, though?

I see ‘evolution’ and Darwinism as the same thing. — Brett

That’s a common viewpoint. Nagel’s ‘Mind and the Cosmos’ argues, however that Darwin’s natural selection is a flawed perspective. The book has been criticised for its rejection of materialism/naturalism and unwillingness to unequivocally reject creationism, but what I think it does do quite well is open the door for a third option. That third option has to explain both natural selection and the teleological nature of our experience.

I know that ‘non- life’ is unable to pass on genes and therefore become part of the process of natural selection. But the fact that the earth, among other planets, was in the ideal position from the sun to begin to propagate life which began the evolution of life forms is part of that whole idea of having the best characteristics to survive and thrive. Nature favours traits or characteristics that are beneficial in a specific environment. It seems to me that was the case with the planet earth. — Brett

If that’s the case, then what is the rest of the universe there for?

Edit: though on reflection I see a weakness there about favouring traits that are beneficial, beneficial to what and how? — Brett

Yes - this weakness is where the argument for Darwin’s natural selection as a complete theory runs into problems, and where our anthropocentric view both of the ecosystem and the value structure of the universe prevents us from obtaining an accurately objective view of reality.

Energy, cause and effect, will, etc are not identities (or existences). Rather, they are aspects (or perspectives) of existences/identities. All forces/influences are contained within (or interact through) forms, just as all forms are configurations/structures of forces, and both forms and forces are in constant expression and interrelation hence perpetual activity. — BrianW

They’re concepts, and they refer to the different aspects of reality or existence - which are also concepts. The structures of our conceptualisation differ markedly, you and I, but I think we have some areas of agreement here.

I agree that influence interacts with and through ‘forms’ (although they are not contained within these ‘forms’, but rather transcend them). I agree that ‘forms’ (which, for me, refers to three aspects of reality: length, shape and form) and ‘forces’ (which refers to three additional aspects: activity/time, influence/value and expression/meaning) interrelate to constitute all of existence as we are aware of it. But it is how these aspects interrelate - what the structure of reality looks like - where we differ most.

Much of what you describe refers to a Newtonian perspective, which derives from Aristotle. What relativity and quantum mechanics has done recently is force us to reassess how we structure reality in order to avoid the prediction error that comes from trying to integrate all of this information into our conceptualisation of reality.

The biggest problem with the Newtonian perspective is that it removes all reference to the ‘self’ as a position within that reality. The problem this creates is similar to the problem solved by acquiring a heliocentric structure to the solar system: by positioning our perspective at a point within rather than central to the structure, we get a more accurately objective view. That’s all I’m attempting to do, really.

*will is just the human analogy to cause. — BrianW

Everything is a human analogy, really. But I disagree with this. The human mind interacts between cause and effect, to predict, imagine, determine and initiate actions.

What does 'outside time' mean?

I would think that anything within the human realm of perception and participation is within the bounds of time. So, how have you arrived at outside time? — BrianW

By outside, I mean regardless of one’s position within it. This is how we’ve determined our relative position on a spherical Earth, in the Solar System, the galaxy and the spatial structure of the universe. It’s how we’ve determined our relative position in human civilisation, the evolution of life and the unfolding of the temporal structure of the universe. It’s how we determine our position within our social groups and a global humanity, and why we struggle to acquire an accurate view of our position within both the ecosystem and the value structure of the universe.

If people agree that it is an ethical requirement to act in a certain way, the demand has achieved its purpose. All precepts of negative ethics are demands (not my demands but demands that the followers of a system subscribe to). Whenever there’s a “don’t” and the followers know it, they are not in doubt that they should abstain from doing it.
Positive ethics, on the other hand, often deals with recommendations instead of demands. Then the followers don’t necessarily have to act in a particular way.
Sometimes, however, also positive ethics uses demands that must be obeyed. (“Honor thy father” for example). — Congau

So am I to understand that your aim is to convince others to subscribe to a system of behaviour that is limited by such demands - but not because those demands correspond to any broader understanding of reality? The important thing for you is not to approach reality or truth, as such, but that the system of behaviour is adhered to - that one’s perspective of reality must be limited by what is ‘right’, and one must ignore, isolate or exclude what is ‘wrong’ according to these stated limitations.

I think we have the same idea but are expressing it differently. I claimed that the principle of cause and effect and the principle of energy (vibration) are all-inclusive to all components of reality. That meant that they were fundamental to reality. In short, reality is energy. And, reality is cause and effect.
Energy is cause and effect - That which causes is energy. That which is effected is energy. The only difference is perspective. Fundamentally, all absolutes are identical. Cause and effect is primarily a perspective with regard to activity. Energy is primarily a perspective with regard to force. Both force and activity are integral to reality. — BrianW

I’m not sure that we do, though. While I agree that energy and cause and effect constitute a four-dimensional aspect of reality, I would argue that there is more to reality than this, and that there is more to these principles than the concepts of ‘energy’ or ‘cause and effect’ describe.

Also, NOTHING IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME. If anything exists then it must have form (a configuration), force (influence) and activity. Where there's form, space is inevitable; where there's activity, time (relativity) is inevitable. And because form and activity are fundamental to reality, space and time are inescapable. — BrianW

I would say that if anything exists then it has form, activity and/OR influence. Energy, for instance, has activity without form. Potential energy has influence with neither activity nor form. Likewise, cause and effect have activity without form, but will has influence with neither activity nor form. And both potential energy and will exist and have influence outside time, enabling us to predict, imagine and initiate activity.

What do you mean by ‘non-life’? — Brett

Non-living elements of the universe - rocks, planets, water, air, etc.

Can you indicate at what stage in time, in relation to the evolution of life, this happened.

Creativity/intelligence existed before evolution began, then at some point the process of evolution began. Is that how you see it? — Brett

Essentially, yes. But I need to clarify whether by ‘evolution’ you mean ‘how life evolved’, or ‘Darwin’s theory of natural selection’. Natural selection as proposed by Darwin has no effect on non-life. Evolution, as I understand it, began at the proposed ‘Big Bang’, and is inclusive of natural selection as a key ‘limiting’ factor.

In my view, creativity/intelligence exists regardless of space, time or value - just not in the way we expect it to exist. What I’m referring is not an intelligent being or even AN intelligence. It is the concept of intelligence - the potential to acquire information - understood without reference to space, time or value. This makes it difficult to say ‘first this, then this’, because at the point where intelligence interacts with itself, there is no awareness of time - or space, for that matter. The universe begins at the point where the potential to acquire information is aware of the potential to acquire information...

Albert Einstein once said ‘Creativity is intelligence having fun’...

That does suggest a sort of anthropomorphism of the environment, conscious acts carried out by the environment against life forms. But for what reason? Why would the environment act this way? — Brett

Not anthropomorphism as such, although I do subscribe to a form of panpsychism, I suppose. They’re not conscious acts as we understand them at all, but each interaction in the universe involves some awareness at a very basic level. So by environment, I mean whatever they interact with. I’m not suggesting culpability here by using words such as ignore, isolate and exclude. I use these terms to illustrate that the process is essentially the same regardless of the level of awareness. These aren’t acts against life forms, they’re acts against the effort required by the underlying creative impetus.

Awareness, connection and collaboration requires energy, effort and change. The alternative is easier. The creative impetus is not really a drive - as a force, it is very weak. The universe, for the most part, is content in its negligible level of awareness. It’s just this tiny percentage we call ‘life’ that took a chance to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond the level of a chemical reaction. Because the impetus was there.

That was just one type of interaction that opened up a new level of awareness - and the majority that reached this point would have gone no further, withdrawing back to non-life as quickly as they emerged. Each subsequent interaction at this level of awareness became a new and varied opportunity to be aware/ignorant, to connect/isolate and collaborate/exclude - and a new call for more energy, effort and change, each taken up by only a very small percentage.

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

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

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

Just wondering what ‘against all odds’ might mean here. Is there some objective truth to the idea of us being creative and intelligent humans? More than most animals, but more than whatever produced us? If we’ve failed to produce anything ‘that approaches such complexity’ then we're less than what produced us. Are we as complex as we imagine? — Brett

All I'm saying is that the simple fact that humans, endowed with intelligence + creativity which you'll agree are advantages when it comes to creating something, haven't managed to create evolution and all this while chemistry, with nothing more than chance, has produced life and humana. Isn't it at least ironic that intelligence can't compete with chance in the creativity department? Of course if we examine the situation carefully, random chance uses a brute force technique that surpasses any intelligence through sheer numbers. — TheMadFool

This is interesting, because I don’t agree that chemistry has done the creating here. This is what I mean by the difference between creating and evolving. Chemistry has evolved, but it didn’t create - not by itself, anyway.

An interesting point of view to consider creativity as a limitation. In my humble opinion creativity is about stepping beyond limits. — TheMadFool

I think you misunderstand me, here. I agree with you that creativity is the capacity and courage to step beyond limits, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. What I meant here by ‘evolution’ IS the underlying process of creativity - but NOT Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

‘Natural selection’ is an evolutionary theory, but in my view it is not evolution. Rather, it provides a key limiting factor to the diversity of life that evolves from an underlying creative impetus. What has been termed ‘natural selection’ is not actually a process of selection: it is an explanation of how elements of the universe ignore, isolate and exclude each other - and the NEGATIVE impact this has on diversity.

The creative process is often understood as the making of specifically useful products - but creativity is broader and more fundamental than that. It is an interaction with potential, where one increases awareness, connection and collaboration with what can be made. The ‘specifically useful’ factor is a limitation imposed on creativity during the creative process, as is the availability of material, tools, etc.

Is there a universal consensus among those who use their reason to figure out what truth is (philosophers) about what truth is?

No. There are just several theses, theses that most of those who are trying to figure out what truth is agree are not very plausible.

Given that there is, at present, no consensus on what truth is, it is worth asking "what would it take for there to be?"

That is, when would philosophers agree that they have found the true theory of truth?

That answer is unquestionably this: they would all agree that theory X is the true theory of truth when the reason of all of them represents theory X to be the true theory of X. For what more could anyone want than this? — Bartricks

Thank you for laying it out. I agree with you up to this point. But the rest does not follow, by my reasoning (for what it’s worth).

Well, then it makes sense to suppose that 'that' is what truth is. That is, that truth itself is none other than the property of being a proposition that Reason is representing to be the case.

That's my reasoning.

So what does truth depend on?

Reason.

It depends on Reason asserting something. Why? Because if and only if she asserts something will anything be true. — Bartricks

‘Reason’ is a concept that you’ve constructed, like ‘God’, to represent a supposedly ‘objective’ position that is inclusive of a ‘consensus’ (ie. of reasoning) - which so far has changed from what one would assume was ‘all people’ to only ‘reasonable people’, and is now only ‘philosophers’. Just as ‘God’ cannot be an objective or ‘omni’ position if you exclude contributing perspectives from the consensus (such as ‘Evil’), so ‘Reason’ as you’ve constructed here can only be a subjective position of reasoning.

Truth depends on more than the property of being a proposition that your ill-defined consensus is representing to be the case, because a comprehensive understanding of truth must be an objective consensus. That doesn’t mean everyone has to agree - but it does mean that what is deemed unreasonable, unethical, inhuman, impossible, improbable, contradictory, unheard of and unknown ALL must contribute to an understanding of what truth is. Otherwise you only have a limited perspective of truth, and so you cannot claim to have fared any better than all those philosophers whose efforts you disparage.

Therefore your argument rests entirely on who or what is ‘Reason’ (hence my initial question), which by all accounts renders any understanding of truth from your theory limited, and therefore subjective.

But hey, if it’s only the truth of your relationship with ‘Reason’ as you (and people like you) understand her, or if you’re arguing that truth as an objective position doesn’t exist, or that we cannot reach a universal consensus on what truth is, then we can explore that. But I don’t think you are.

A comprehensive answer to ‘what is truth?’ must be inclusive of understanding the relationship between truth and supposedly ‘unreasonable’ perspectives like mine. You can’t just exclude us - that’s not what truth is.

You brought up the analogy to water, not me. I’m just trying to work out your reasoning, so I went with your analogy. I assumed you brought it up because you thought it was relevant. My apologies for thinking you were going somewhere with it.

you now ask "what does truth depend on (apart from the assertions of Reason)?" the answer is "nothing" - for that's like asking "what does water depend on, apart from hydrogen and oxygen?" It expresses a refusal either to understand or accept the analysis just provided. Which is your prerogative, of course, but the fact is that I've argued for it and the argument has yet to be challenged. — Bartricks

Are you saying that water depends on nothing apart from hydrogen and oxygen?

“Our essence of Mind is intrinsically pure. If we knew our Mind perfectly and realised what our Self-nature truly is, all of us would be enlightened.” (Bodhisattva Sila Sutra - ca 450 BC)

At around the same time the concept of Selfrealisation bloomed in the philosophical circles of Greece under the heading “know thyself”, and became famous through Socrates who claimed “Knowledge is inherent in man, not outside. Wisdom is learning to recollect”

In the Orient this was apparently taken seriously, as – particularly in India, Tibet & China – it brought about a variety of teachings & schools as well as methods & approaches attending the different needs and temperaments of the aspirants of Selfrealisation.

That “know thyself” made it in the Occident barely beyond philosophical exercises, is probably because it established in the same period the ratio of dualism which subjected knowledge to the feedback mechanism of the intellect. This is not to say that eastern aspirants do not use intellectual techniques, but they are taught how far to utilise them (which is not all the way to the beginning) whereas western thinkers think that they have to think all the way to the end. — waechter418

The occidental focus has been a long detour. We constructed ‘knowledge’ using mathematics, logic and language in isolation from that which humbles us. The rapid ‘advances’ in intellect that resulted were marred by their destructive capacities in application, so ignorant they were of our inescapable connection to what we propose to act upon. By striving to exclude the subjective ‘self’ from science, we solved every problem except ourselves. And now we are faced with the realisation that WE are the problem we’ve been trying to solve all along. Not a collective ‘we’ that really means everyone else, but the subjective experience in the context of a broader meaning than our anthropocentric value structures dictate.

That’s not to say that the oriental focus fared much better. In distancing themselves from the approach of the West and often society in general (in the interests of self-preservation), this self-imposed exclusion often slowed the process of Selfrealisation in many ways. We know ourselves fully only in our interaction with the world. By withdrawing from the world, we necessarily limit the self that we can know. To start with a limited perspective of self makes sense. But the idea is to ‘know thyself’ in an ever-broadening context.

Carlo Rovelli described a combination of quantum mechanics and information theory in this way:

A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality is Not What You Think’

I think this suggests that it’s at least possible to bring the West around to ‘know thyself’ from a position of knowing the universe intellectually and interacting with it fully. But to achieve this we need to put the subjective experience back into science, and humbly expose the gaps and limitations in our knowledge for what they are.

In negative ethics the “don’t” indicates that there is no other possibility, doing it would be plain wrong. — Congau

Of course there is a possibility - that is clearly demonstrated when someone acts contrary to your imperative. By defining the doing of the ‘don’t’ as ‘wrong’, given that it doesn’t prevent the doing, what do you hope to achieve?

I’m of the belief that philosophy is supposed to strive to make sense of the world, not declare it to be ‘messy’ and then leave it like that. In science, if a description of reality is unworkable, then it’s not reality - you find a more accurate description. You don’t just declare that reality should be conforming to your description as an ‘ideal’.

Perhaps this is the problem I have with ethics. There is a way to describe reality that not only explains what we should (or shouldn’t) be doing, but also explains why not everyone does (or refrains from doing) what they should (or shouldn’t). Ethics (or perhaps just traditional formulations) has a tendency to avoid this second part - it simply attempts to draw a line and then ignores, isolates or excludes the reality beyond that line. The fact that there is a reality beyond that line is ‘messy’, but you’re just sweeping dirt under the rug here.

It’s a delusion to say that ‘this is what reality is supposed to be but it sucks that it isn’t’. That’s not a workable philosophy. Don’t get me wrong - that used to be me, so I understand the appeal. But the world is only ‘messy’ because we have an inaccurate perspective of ‘neat’. When we can see the world through a more accurate conceptualisation - one that is inclusive of all actions and processes and motivations (even the ones we don’t agree with) - then it actually looks pretty tidy. I always thought that was the ultimate aim of philosophy.