Mind and Cosmos
- Jon L
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: March 30th, 2016, 3:49 pm
Mind and Cosmos
This leads him to postulate that mind or something like it must have a primary role in the cosmos. He goes on to suggest an Aristotelian non intentional teleology to undergird the Universe and evolution. He makes his distaste for a Theistic solution clear and so in this case a non intentional teleology is presumably the only way to go.
I'm not at this point concerned as to whether he is right about natural selection and the emergence of mind. My thought is does the idea of non intentional teleology make any sense? is it coherent to conceive of nature moving towards very specific future complex goals without intention?
A theist would probably say that anyone who argues like Nagel should embrace some form of theism and intelligent design and that he only adopts his non intentional teleology because of his dislike for theism. Would someone who made that charge be correct, incorrect. Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: March 30th, 2016, 8:03 am
Re: Mind and Cosmos
Most of living beings are still microscopic and even many large species (sharks, crocodiles) have changed very little over long periods. I don't know if this is compatible with the idea of evolution having a direction. When it comes to mentality and consciousness, we have to keep in mind our biased position, as we are looking at the problem from the inside and cannot look at it from any other angle. The very fact that we are the most complex species on the planet might bias us into seeing more complexity when in fact most lifeforms are still relatively simple. So, while I don't think we can just discount his ideas, I certainly don't agree with him. What really bothered me about the book was how vague he was when trying to present an alternative. Not that he necessarily needs to have all the answers before pointing out the flaws in the current paradigm, but I would have liked a clear alternative theory.
I am glad that he is criticizing the prevailing view. Nothing prevents progress more than a premature consensus. Plus the response the book has gotten indicates that the field of biology has become a bit dogmatic. Nagel was attacked and it seemed to me some of those attacks were really emotionally charged. People didn't like for Darwinism to be criticized. I guess it was even worst because this time it didn't come from religious folks and the intelligent design movement (in which case it can be dismissed as ideological and actually supports the reductionist camp), but from a respected secular philosopher.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: April 9th, 2016, 9:44 am
Re: Mind and Cosmos
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13822
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Mind and Cosmos
Isn't this Lamarckian? If not, what other mechanism could there be other than some supernatural one?Mainly they argue that positive mutations are more likely than negative ones, which would suggest there is something more at work than just random mutation and blind natural selection.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Mind and Cosmos
How can they be sure what the ratio is? Many negative mutations will disappear quickly, and some won't even make it past the zygote stage. I think it's fair to say that most things in reality appear to have a single tendency - to grow - and to that end they tend to aggregate (and, necessarily, recycle used materials).Belinda wrote:Sanchez wrote:
Isn't this Lamarckian? If not, what other mechanism could there be other than some supernatural one?Mainly they argue that positive mutations are more likely than negative ones, which would suggest there is something more at work than just random mutation and blind natural selection.
The most fascinating aspect of this tendency to grow, push outwards, expand and (in biology) thrive is emergence - how something new comes from the "aggregated old" once it reaches certain thresholds. So a vast tribe of microbes, cellular and free, can produce an Albert Einstein. So compressed material in space can pass a mass threshold and produce nuclear explosions - and a new star ignites. Similarly, organic materials built up in density (in this case informational and systemic rather than physical) and once again, a "flame ignites" - abiogenesis.
Meanwhile, humans band together and suddenly a new form "ignites" - the corporation - with power and abilities far greater than those of its individuals, and with its own agendas and demands that come at the expense of the composite individuals. It's akin to us sacrifice parts of ourselves for the sake of the whole (eg. removal of gangrenous tissue), pr a star flinging its spent material out into the cosmos. One thing you can be sure of, whatever complex informational systems exist that comprise us, they will have a tendency to grow, aggregate and recycle too. They will also be about as "similar" to our consciousness as our minds are to bacterial impulses. It seems more likely to me that "consciousness" does not exist everywhere but "something informational" does appears to be everywhere so consciousness as we know would be just a subset of that larger phenomenon. Just as we can only perceive certain wavelengths of light without technological aid, we can only perceive certain kinds of the phenomena of which consciousness is just a part.
It seems to me that the aim of the game is to recycle rather than be recycled, and avoid the latter for as long as possible. That may seem glib, but the act of being alive is a defiance of entropy, a refusal to allow the outside environment to break you open. That's what happens without our living efforts; "nature" tests all of its components for durability by constantly moving to restore chemical and energetic balance, and this is achieved by by essentially turning you inside out and scattered your insides around.
So death is, in essence, a turning inside out, and it occurs because a system no longer has the strength to resist the constant push of nature (via bacteria, scavengers, predators, radiation, oxidation, etc). Almost everything around us is blindly pushing to access those juicy insides of ours, which are thankfully usually well protected by our skin and ego. The doubts that Nagle raises will remain unless definitive causative, rather than just correlative, links are made between the physics and chemistry of neurons and conscious experience.
This post could be organised better (sorry) but lunch calls :)
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: March 30th, 2016, 8:03 am
Re: Mind and Cosmos
Had to do some digging on this one. The phenomena is called directed mutagenesis. Basically the studies have subjected living beings (bacteria, for example) to an environment with an artificial selection pressure. Apparently one study involved bacteria that weren't able to metabolize lactose, but when placed in an environment where lactose was the only form of energy, they evolved this capacity with a rate much higher than one would expect from random mutations. What I read is that Lamarckism isn't completely dead, either. Some biologists do still believe that there might be something to it. Not that there's a whole lot of evidence but apparently in some cases it seems like certain acquired traits are inherited. I'm not a biologist so I don't even dare to have an opinion on this. Perhaps there is more at work than just Darwinian selection, but I have trouble imagining what that would be. How would simple beings like bacteria essentially "know" how to mutate?Belinda wrote:Sanchez wrote:
Isn't this Lamarckian? If not, what other mechanism could there be other than some supernatural one?Mainly they argue that positive mutations are more likely than negative ones, which would suggest there is something more at work than just random mutation and blind natural selection.
One thing that Nagel said in the book and I agree with is that there is no good Darwinian explanation of rationality. There are evolutionary arguments that effectively say that nothing has provided us with better survival advantage than the ability to make correct judgments of the external world. So, that would be the explanation of rationality. As Nagel pointed out, this is circular, since it already assumes that the argument itself was rational. What I don't agree with is the idea of having some alternative explanation for rationality. I think any argument used to support the existence of rationality, materialistic, teleological, dualistic etc. will have the same problem. They all assume rational thought. I don't think this is about the structure of the universe, but rather the nature of human thought. We can't escape epistemology and even if we try to refute the foundation of knowledge, we actually have to accept the basic premise that this refutation itself has truth value.
Oh, and I also disagreed with Nagels idea of objective values. I had a hard time following his arguments, but I think if values were really objective (meaning they existed outside the minds of anyone), you'd have to conclude that there two sorts of values in the universe: one type is the objective ones, and the other are the variable subjective ones we encounter. We have no way of distinguishing between these two and the subjectivity of values would actually explain everything we observe. These objective values would effectively be invisible or at least we don't know if we've ever followed them.
- Jon L
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: March 30th, 2016, 3:49 pm
Re: Mind and Cosmos
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Mind and Cosmos
So bacteria evolution is the only evolution we observed directly. Is that complex to simple evolution or simple to complex evolution taking place?Sanchez wrote: Apparently one study involved bacteria that weren't able to metabolize lactose, but when placed in an environment where lactose was the only form of energy, they evolved this capacity with a rate much higher than one would expect from random mutations........ How would simple beings like bacteria essentially "know" how to mutate?
Is it both?
How does any genetic processes know how to do what they do? Were pretty sure they did not read a book or see a video.
Biological genetic processes are most complex part of Universe, with woman being the pinnacle of that complexity. Barring any ideas of one or more women etc....
I believe there exists cosmic static map or code at ultra-micro scales of existence that, corresponds to complex set of dynamic interrelation ships that will never be able to access in any meaningful way, because to small and too complex to map/chart. exactly all of the relationships, trajectories etc....
In this sense, we may find, that, the basis for biological life exists eternally, within context of an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.
We may be able to produce some simple, static maps/charts/models that correlate to the fundamentals of these dynamic processes.
r6
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: March 30th, 2016, 8:03 am
Re: Mind and Cosmos
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13822
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Mind and Cosmos
Artificial selection of fruit flies and bacteria show human intentions not supernatural or any other deeper , underlying layer of reality. I can sort of see that while Lamarckism might not be inexplicable, final cause or intention applies only to certain beings and species and not to nature as a whole or to inanimate stuff. Indeed, the presence of intentions towards the other perhaps may be the difference between life and not-life.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Mind and Cosmos
Is both occurring?
Biological genetic processes are most complex part of Universe, with woman being the pinnacle of that complexity. Barring any ideas of one or more women etc....
...\**/.... 2ndary symbolism for woman aka closed triangle
.....\/.......... and most complex woman
*Y* is 2ndary symbolism for less complex man.
\Y/ is birds-eye-view of tetrahedron i.e. man inside woman creates minimal 2D structure a tetrahedron that has half-way between being out-side out and inside out.
r6
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023