show me where you have discussed this principle before. — Joe Mello

Here's a link to a well-known paper - "More is Different" by P.W. Anderson. — T Clark

Forgot to include the link I referenced -

https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf

T Clark, show me where you have discussed this principle before. — Joe Mello

Emergence is not a philosophical principle, it's a scientific one, although it is not fully accepted. It has been discussed lots of times here on the forum, although I can't remember a specific discussion. Here's a link to a well-known paper - "More is Different" by P.W. Anderson.

https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf

life evolving from the elements — Joe Mello

Taking physical elements and adding to them an equal thing, such as other elements, to create a living being would be an impossibility. — Joe Mello

Life did not "evolve from the elements." Darwin was very clear that he did not know how life began and his theory has nothing to say about it. His theory of evolution by natural selection only applies to, oddly enough, the origins of species, i.e. changes in populations of organisms, by natural selection.

Our understanding of how life developed from non-living matter is not as well-established as Darwinian evolution, but scientists are making progress. Suggested reading - "Life's Ratchet" by Peter Hoffmann.

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

Many of the posters before me on this thread have expressed their skepticism about this statement, a skepticism I share. Groups of lesser things creating a greater thing without something greater being added is one of the primary ways the world organizes itself, e.g. chemistry creating life and biology creating mind.

Seems like maybe you're itching to provoke a fight more than you are just introducing yourself.

philosophy is unnecessary — Wayfarer

No. Evolutionary biology is science. Philosophy, in the sense we usually use it here, is not science.

...the mind can be understood solely through 'physical and biological mechanisms'.

So how is that not reductionist? — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, I think my statement is ambiguous. I was trying to thread the needle by making a fuzzy but important distinction between the mind and the mechanisms of mind. As I see it, the mechanisms of mind are neurological, biological, perceptual, and psychological. The mind itself is not.

So, no. I don't think I am being reductionist.

In the traditional understanding - and I'm not referring to any kind of creationism - the intellect - nous - has a kind of familial bond with the cosmic intellect - whether the One of Plotinus or what later became identified as God. — Wayfarer

I think what you've written is what I was referring to when I wrote:

Although I probably don't have the same understanding of how it might work, I don't think what you've written is necessarily at odds with what I've written above. — T Clark

I don't see any cosmic mind, but I think the world we normally think of as reality is inseparable from our experience of it. That's what I learned from Lao Tzu.

In the Darwinian view, there is no foresight in nature, no aim to be achieved, no grand plan or design. — Wayfarer

This is my view also.

Everything that occurs in nature, occurs as the consequence of molecular activities — Wayfarer

I think this is where my comment about mechanisms of phenomena as opposed to the phenomena themselves comes into play. Life grows out of chemistry, but is also different from, more than, chemistry. Emergence. The mind operates in accordance with different rules than the nervous system.

Whereas the traditional understanding - I would include Taoism in this - is top-down, not bottom-up. The patterns or orders of nature are perceived to embody a kind of intelligence, whether that is the 'grand architect' of Western tradition, or the subtle naturalism of the Tao (which is 'the way of nature'.) — Wayfarer

Do I agree with this? Is the Taoist view of reality top-down?.... I guess I don't think so. The Tao is the bottomest thing there can possibly be. It's so bottom a thing it's not a thing at all.

Could Romanticism be the problem? — Athena

Sorry I come late to this discussion. I've gone through the other comments. Some of them touch on the point of view I see this from. First, I want to make sure we are clear on what we mean by "romanticism" and "romantic." It has several related meanings, but here is the one I think of when dealing with political and ideological issues:

Romanticism - A literary, artistic, and philosophical movement originating in the 18th century, characterized chiefly by a reaction against neoclassicism and an emphasis on the imagination and emotions, and marked especially in English literature by sensibility and the use of autobiographical material, an exaltation of the primitive and the common man, an appreciation of external nature, an interest in the remote, a predilection for melancholy, and the use in poetry of older verse forms.

Romantic - Marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized.

When I think of romanticism in this context, I usually think of ideologies that focus on a mythical golden age that existed in an unspecified past.

These definitions indicate that romanticism in this sense originated in the 1700s, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the romantic impulse wasn't around earlier. By the definition above, I think Nazism, communism, jingoistic patriotism, and other similar ideologies can be defined as romanticism. So, yes. I think it is fair to say that romanticism is one of the major sources of, or at least excuses for, conflict.

You know what reductionism means? Do you see why this might be described as reductionist? — Wayfarer

Yes, I know what "reductionism" is. Is my statement reductionist?.... I'm not sure. If it is, does that mean it's wrong, misleading, or incomplete?... I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Why we exist, you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.

To me, that is something the Bishop ought to have pounced on, but he was not philosophically astute enough to sieze the moment. The question as to whether there is a reason for existence is obviously a central question for philosophy - not just biblical creationists, but even atheist existentialists. Because without there being some reason, in the larger sense, then it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that life is a kind of biochemical fluke. — Wayfarer

I don't find "why?" a very interesting question when we are talking about the world we live in. Science has nothing to say about why. The best it can do is help us understand how. I don't feel any need of a reason for the way things are. Life is a biochemical phenomenon. A fluke? My intuition tells me that life might be inevitable, although I can't justify that with specific knowledge.

There are, however, all kinds of 'evolutionary' answers to that conundrum - like, for instance, Tielhard du Chardin, and Henri Bergson, from several generations back, and nowadays the 'Big History' school which sees the evolution of consciousness as intrinsic to the Cosmos. — Wayfarer

These types of answers have always seemed to me to be romantic musings of people who don't really believe in God but can't get past a need to have a concrete anchor to attach their longing to.

But it should be stressed that none of those ideas are really relevant to mainstream evolutionary biology as such, which I maintain has a much more limited scope that it is usually given credit for. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Evolutionary biology is not itself a philosophy or a metaphysics. It’s a theory of the evolution of species....It’s also not a philosophy of mind. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, the only factors it takes into account are those which can be understood in terms of what leads to successful reproduction and continued existence. — Wayfarer

Evolutionary biology is not a philosophy of any sort. That doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to tell us about the development of mental phenomena, e.g. mind, consciousness. I find it perfectly plausible that the physical, biological mechanisms which lead to the experiences we call "mind" evolved in accordance with principles discovered by Darwin and others. For those of us who think that physical and biological mechanisms of mind are all there is, that's enough.

It is generally based on an intuition of the relationship or even continuity between mind and world - that both the mind and the world embody an order which is in some sense complementary and suffuses both, in the mind as reason and in the world as causation. — Wayfarer

Although I probably don't have the same understanding of how it might work, I don't think what you've written is necessarily at odds with what I've written above. I won't go far into this, but Lao Tzu is the one who opened my eyes to the relationship between humanity and reality.

I appreciate the axiomatic nature of matter, — Michael Sol

"The axiomatic nature of matter" is a metaphysical presupposition as described by R.G. Collingwood in his "Essay on Metaphysics." It is not true or false, it is more or less useful in a particular situation. I'm sure you won't find that a satisfactory answer and I don't really want to get into another argument about metaphysics right now, so I'll just say I don't appreciate the axiomatic nature of matter.

explain what it is that changes without cause? — Michael Sol

Cause is a useful concept for simple systems, e.g. the cliche pool table. When you get much more complex than that, when an event has many causes or you can't practically identify the chain of causation, it becomes meaningless. Another argument, Russell's, is that modern scientific models of physical reality do not involve causation. An example commonly used relates to theories of gravitation. Newton's theory involves a force, which is an agent of causation. Einstein's theory involves the geometry of spacetime, which is not.

And no, I am not qualified to discuss the intricacies of general relativity.

The macroscopic, material understandings of matter, time, and energy are all still the framework within which reality is understood and physics is practiced with precise results. Furthermore, mysteries and ignorance surrounding the nature of quanta DOES NOT imply that the material reality within which you live, whose impregnable laws are used on a daily basis to produce cars, radio equipment, space flights, and power, is not what it has arranged itself to be. — Garrett Travers

Well put and I think it's an important point. What we call reality is at human scale. How could it be anything else?

You replied that you can imagine the creating of a consciousness by some natural process other than evolution? Could you share us the description of that process? — Michael Sol

First off, let me be clear. I believe that consciousness is a neurological, perceptual, psychological process the mechanisms for which have evolved in accordance with Darwinian principles as they are currently understood. There are many non-religious people who do not accept that explanation, who think that consciousness has a non-biological component. I think they're wrong. but I can imagine there is some other process.

Many philosophers reject the need for causation. See B Russell, 1912.

Yeah, Hume, Russell and all of those others are wrong, and none of them ever gave us any other mechanism whereby material reality might operate. I would really like to see a conceptual model that accounts for Object change without causation.... Causation is, as Kant pointed out, an indispensable basis of all existence. — Michael Sol

So, Hume and Russell are wrong and Kant is right. Sez Michael Sol. That's not an argument. We can have a discussion about the metaphysics of causation I guess, but that will take us off in another direction. It's been discussed many times here on the forum.

As we cannot even Imagine a means of Creating a Consciousness other than by Evolution in a Material Reality, — Michael Sol

I can. Many people can.

Also, to suggest an all-powerful being created us by some mysterious process that does not involve causality is simply a silly recourse to Magic — Michael Sol

Many philosophers reject the need for causation. See B Russell, 1912.

any serious thought about it dispels the illusion that it can be anything more than faith. — Janus

Faith - if by that you mean belief without evidence - no. Faith - if by that you mean belief based on the evidence of personal experience - ok.

believing nonsense under the guise of impressive, intimidating and esoteric arguments. — _db

Sounds like philosophy to me. Not all of it, but definitely some of it.

Not sure exactly what your point is, but it sounds a little like Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology wherein God is seen as a properly basic belief, the necessary foundation for objective reality and coherence. This is worked up from Kant's transcendentals. — Tom Storm

I'm not familiar with Plantinga, but from what you've written that sounds like just what I'm talking about.

but to Banno and @T Clark I say: probably best to avoid this thread unless you're going to address the OP. — jamalrob

Agreed.

I assume philosophy is open to all possible ideas but after talking to a Catholic priest who made it seem like he considered religion and philosophy to be synonymous. However the idea of reincarnation certainly wasn't up for debate at all. The conversation seemed entirely dogmatic. How are these topics related? — TiredThinker

I had another thought, or maybe it's the same idea as my previous post. I have often thought, and more than once written on the forum, that a belief in objective reality requires an objective observer. Someone who can stand outside the reality we experience and see it as it really is. The only entity I can think of that could fill that role is God.

It's not my intention to argue for the existence of God here. Rather, I'm arguing for the philosophical relevance of religion.

R.G. Collingwood wrote that one absolute presumption of all science is that God exists. That may seem absurd at first take, but I interpret him as meaning that all science is dependent on the existence of a universe that operates in accordance with lawful principles that we are capable of understanding. I'm not any kind of historian of science or philosophy, but it seems reasonable to me to ask if that presupposition depends on, or at least once depended on, religious understanding.

much religion is dogma and antithetical to philosophy — Tom Storm

Much philosophy is dogma and antithetical to philosophy. There are plenty of examples here on the forum. And no, I'm not talking about you.

If you like. It's just that you seem to be annoyed at a newbie for not responding, when their thread has been hijacked - you are upset a the wrong thing. — Banno

Hey, @SwampMan, Banno is full of crap. If you are going to start posts, and you've started three, you should be participating.

Banno likes to stick his nose in cause he thinks he's all wise and stuff, but you'll notice he rarely has anything substantive to say. This exchange is a case in point.

Again, who would one bother posting here, with Bart's nonsense? It seems to me that your anger is misdirected. — Banno

You seem to be just using me as a passive-aggressive way to attack Bartricks. Knock yourself out.

But that sounds like philosophical Apatheia gone awry. — Gnomon

No. As someone who prides himself on time management, i.e. someone lazy, why should I try to answer a question that doesn't need an answer?

I grew up in the post-Depression & post-War-to-end-all-wars 1950s — Gnomon

You and I are about the same age.

My own understanding of mindfulness is about paying attention to body, emotions and thoughts. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I think this is exactly right. It's about awareness.

It is important to be aware of how mindfulness meditation arose in the context of Buddhism, although it has been developed independently from this within psychology. — Jack Cummins

I think the idea of "mindfulness" is a westernization of eastern principles. It's always seemed to me it was developed because people were embarrassed to talk seriously in a medical or psychological context about something tainted with mysticism. It's kind of Buddhism Lite.

I wouldn't blame SwampMan for not responding here; Bart's nonsense has hijacked the thread. — Banno

It may shock you to hear this, but I'm a bit cranky sometimes. On the other hand, three discussions with only a single post beyond the OPs is a bit much.

Maybe we could refocus the topic from speculative Teleological Ends to retrospective Evolutionary Trends. — Gnomon

My point from the beginning has been, given the information we have about life and the universe, there is no need to hypothesize teleology, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, fine-tuning, or any other similar phenomenon. You disagree and want to keep on examining the issue. I'm not going to convince you. You're not going to convince me. We've run through the same arguments over and over.

I don't see any point in going on.

But I was hoping you would at least offer some relevant evidence or argument in favor of a downward trend in evolution. — Gnomon

I don't think there is a downward trend. I don't think there is any trend.

a universe where LIFE is rare & precious. — Gnomon

We have no idea of how rare life is in this universe.

evolution is a collective holistic process, — Gnomon

Sorry, I don't know what this means in the context of this discussion.

Ok, ok. No more. This is fun but we're not going anywhere.

I don't agree with your math. Let's reduce your number from 1000 to 2 to make this clearer. You know one marble is black. You also know there is only 1 or 2 marbles in the box. What we therefore know about our box is that it has one of the following combinations:

1 black marble
2 black marbles
1 black marble and one not black marble

There are three scenarios, one guarantees black, two guarantees black, and the third guarantees a 1/2 black and 1/2 non-black. I'm going with 5/6 chance for black based on the information provided. — Hanover

I started out with the assumption that there are a finite number of marbles in the box. I chose 1,000 for the illustration because it's a pretty big number. I didn't choose 2 because it isn't. I acknowledged we know there's at least one marble and no more than 1,000. One or all of them might be black. So, if I take another marble out of the box, the odds of it being black are anywhere between 0.001 and 1. The range of probabilities for any possible event is between 0 and 1. So, I have slightly better than no information at all about how unusual black marbles are. All I really know is that they're possible.

So... do I need a special theory to explain why the marble I pulled out of the box was black?

I was trying to keep things simple, but there could be a trillion marbles in the box. Or a google (10^100). Or a googleplex (10^100)^(10^100). Given the current theories of multiverse formation (quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation) the number would probably be very big. Or maybe not. Maybe just one.

But what does the marble analogy have to do with cosmic coincidences and Teleological inferences? As noted in the quote below from 20th century astrophysicists ; after a century of searching for a "physical explanation" they still don't know what causes those lucky streaks that 21st century physicist Paul Davies called the "Cosmic Jackpot". — Gnomon

I don't see any reason to continue with this discussion. We're not getting anywhere.

Forgot - Welcome to the forum.

Argument layout:
In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
Thus, Christianity is false. — makayla harris

The "problem of evil" argument is one that gets used here often. I don't find it very convincing. Who the heck knows why God does what it does? Unless I am a fundamentalist, why would I think that people who think they know what God thinks or what God wants are right? Everyone, every religion, knows that suffering and death are part of our lives. Even so, the world is a wonderful place.

To be clear, I am not a follower of any religion.

There is another thread on the same subject open now on the forum.

In 1506, Wang Yangming proposed his main idea of Xinxue: Mind ( Soul) is the “Dao”, and there is nothing that exists other than that. — Howard

The idea of the Dao, or Tao, was around for a long time before that. Have you read the Tao Te Ching from about 2,000 years earlier. I'm not sure how Wang Yangming's use of the word differs from Lao Tzu's, if at all.

I really like Wang YangMing and his book 《教条示龙场诸生》. I would like to propose my argument to support his claim above.

1. If objective physics exists as science discovered, then physics cannot continue to develop.
2. According to the history of mankind, the science of mankind has been progressing.
3. Objective physics does not exist exactly as it is studied by science.
4. the existence of something that does not exist objectively depends on the human’s mind.
5. Everything depends on the human heart in order to exist. — Howard

I don't understand this argument.

What if people have already reached the highest level of physics and there is no way to improve? It might be the reason why science is not developing as fast as the last couple centuries. — Howard

I don't think this is true. Physics has run up against some walls in the past few decades, but that usually means some rethinking is necessary. We'll see. On the other hand, biology, genetics, cognitive science, computer science are progressing at an amazing rate.

According to the definition, people who plug in into the machine can and only can experience pleasure. My argument against it would be like the following:

1. The existence of something depends on the existence of something opposite to it.
2. Pleasure is one of these things.
3. Pleasure depends on the existence of its opposite, which is pain.
4. In the hypothetical experience machine, only pleasure exists.
5. In the hypothetical experience machine, pain does not exist, so neither does pleasure.
6. One definition of a thing cannot conflict with another definition of it.

Conclusion： Experience machines cannot exist. — Howard

First, welcome to the forum.

Some thoughts:

1. The existence of something depends on the existence of something opposite to it.
2. Pleasure is one of these things.
3. Pleasure depends on the existence of its opposite, which is pain.

Certainly not true for everything. What things is it true for? Maybe only true for distinctions, comparisons. Anyway - Lao Tzu says (Stephen Mitchell translation of the Tao Te Ching, Verse 2):

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

In "The Wisdom of Insecurity" Alan Watts wrote:

...consciousness must involve both pleasure and pain, to strive for pleasure to the exclusion of pain is, in effect, to strive for the loss of consciousness. Because such a loss is in principle the same as death, this means that the more we struggle for life (as pleasure), the more we are actually killing what we love.

4. In the hypothetical experience machine, only pleasure exists.
5. In the hypothetical experience machine, pain does not exist, so neither does pleasure.

This seems true, although I don't know the facts about the physiology of pleasure. It is certainly true for our closest analogs to the experience machine - drugs and alcohol.

6. One definition of a thing cannot conflict with another definition of it.

Sure it can. Definitions are human things. Just hang around the forum for a while. It happens all the time.

And its pretty sad to see someone presumably over the age of 10 resorting to the good old "I know you are but what am I" anyways. — Seppo

Actually, this is one of my favorite philosophical arguments, as elucidated by that great American philosopher P.W. Herman.

You've started three discussions but have only made one comment. You've never commented on the discussions you started other than the opening post.

If you're not going to participate fairly, especially in the threads you start yourself, get lost.

To briefly summarize Kastrup’s metaphysics in my own words and from my own understanding of it: all that exists is one (inherently spaceless and timeless) consciousness, and each metabolizing organism is a dissociated localization of this one consciousness. He uses the analogy of dissociative identity disorder (DID) from psychology to express how the one consciousness localizes (dissociates) itself into seemingly many subjects. The inanimate universe as a whole that we all perceive is simply what the one consciousness looks like from our dissociated perspectives. As a naturalist, Kastrup does not believe that the one consciousness in its “pure” form is intrinsically self-reflective like we are, since it did not undergo the evolutionary process that we did. — Paul Michael

There is a myth about one of the Hindu gods that I like a lot. @Wayfarer wrote about it in a previous thread. This god was lonely, so to create someone to play with, he split himself up into all the myriad things in the world and then made them all forget they were part of him. Did I get that right, Wayfarer?

Kastrup's idea is a myth just like the one described above. You don't need to disprove it. There's no way to test it one way or another. That's what metaphysical positions all have in common. They're not true or false. You pick the one that works best for you.

the most popular arguments against Teleology are statistical quibbles. — Gnomon

I'm not equipped to make statistical arguments one way or the other. — Gnomon

They aren't "quibbles." And they aren't arcane, sophisticated mathematics. They are just about the most basic possible statistical and probabilistic judgements. Let's say I have a box. You can't see inside the box so you don't know if there's anything in it. I tell you there are somewhere between 1 and 1,000 marbles in it. I reach in and pull out a black marble and show it to you, then put it back in the box. Now, can you tell me how many black marbles there are in the box? All you can tell me is that it's at least one and no more than 1,000, assuming I'm telling the truth. If I reach back in the box and pull out a marble at random, what is the probability it will be black?

We can't tell the likelihood of pulling a black marble out of the box and we can't tell the likelihood that other possible universes will have life in them.

I expected some science-based arguments against the notion of progress in evolution. Instead, all I get are absolute denials, and two word arguments : " . . . . . because science" , with no evidence or logic. — Gnomon

This is not true. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I made a very simple argument based on probability and statistics why the anthropic principle and fine tuning argument are not needed to explain conditions in the universe we happen to find ourselves in. A quick summary:

We only have access to information from one universe, this one right here. It is impossible to estimate the likelihood of an event when we have information from only a single sample from a population of unknown size. For that reason, we have no basis for estimating the probability of there being intelligent life in our universe or any universe. And for that reason, there is no basis or need for speculation about an anthropic principle, fine-tuning argument, or multiverse to address this issue.

Excerpts from posts by outraged believers in random rather than regulated Determinism :
"information on beliefs"
"I believe this is not true."
"do not believe"
"I don't believe"
"I reel in terror" — Gnomon

I've underlined my contribution to your list. In what sense does "I believe this is not true," represent outrage? All it means is that I think you're wrong. And for the record, I am not a believer in "random determinism." I don't think determinism is a useful way of looking at the world in most situations.

I think calling my contribution "outraged" is a sign of your lack of perspective on this subject.

I don't think an experience of a god - even if I grant that the experience is genuine - counts as an explanation of anything God is said to have done or wants from humans. The experience explains the experience and may well count as proof of God by the believer, but it does not provide an elucidation of anything further. — Tom Storm

First off, as I've made clear in the past, I am not a theist and don't have any particular religious beliefs. Still, if someone has experienced God directly within a religious tradition, it seems to me it would make faith in the tenets of that tradition a reasonable response. People say there is no evidence for God, but there is.

I am impressed by the opinions of Foolso4 and Olivier. — god must be atheist

Agreed. I've been impressed by this whole thread. Great discussion.