BothAndBlog Forum

The Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/537528
"Mind (creator) = Mindless (evolution)."

Notice the word, "strategy" above vis-à-vis evolution. If anything, it implies that were there a being as intelligent as us behind the "creation" of life, that being (some call it god/creator) would do exactly what evolution does right now. — TheMadFool

If I understand what you are implying, I must whole-heartedly agree. In my own theory of Creation via Evolution, our world has grown from a tiny fetus (Singularity) to the most complex system in the known universe, by implementing a simple algorithm : Chance + Choice = Progress. Random variations provide novelty from which the most adaptive forms are Naturally Selected to pass on into the next generation. That is indeed the "strategy" of the Genetic Algorithm.

The very fact that the natural world is currently & automatically implementing such a concise algorithm implies the necessary existence of a Strategic Mind to invent the procedure (logical plan of action) and a set of rules (natural laws) that will progress toward a pre-defined ultimate goal (teleology). In light of modern Science, this kind of creation makes a lot more sense than the "let-there-be-light" method of Old Testament Creation. That wishing-makes-it-so method fits the ancient notion of God as a super-human Wizard wielding weird powers. But, the concept of G*D as a Programmer fits our modern understanding of how things get done in the real world.

Lacking a direct divine revelation though, I must admit that I don't know what the implicit ultimate goal of ongoing creation is. But I can recognize the clear pattern of Cause - Effect Intention in the workings of Nature. And it seems to require ever-increasing Complexity & Consciousness. Several years ago, based such observations and inferences, I wrote a little essay to briefly introduce a thesis that I called Intelligent Evolution, to serve as an alternative to the then popular notion of Intelligent Design. The primary difference is that my notion of creation is an on-going billion year process, instead of an instant fait accompli (a done deal). So, I must agree that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a world as imperfect as ours, but might possibly create a world that could mature toward a more perfect state in the future.


Strategic : relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them.

Algorithm : An algorithm is a set of instructions designed to perform a specific task.

Genetic Algorithm :
A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that is inspired by Charles Darwin's theory of natural evolution. This algorithm reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation.
https://towardsdatascience.com/introduc ... 96e98d8bf3

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. ---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... ramming---
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Evolutionary (Genetic) Programming :
The program does not specify the final outcome. But it does define a “fitness function”, which sets the criteria for acceptable solutions. With-out those limits, the process could go on indefinitely.
We can see that natural evolution is circling around some future state, like a moth to a light. The ultimate-fitness-point functions like a Strange Attractor to “pull” the present toward that future state.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf

"So, I must agree that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a world as imperfect as ours, but might possibly create a world that could mature toward a more perfect state in the future." — Gnomon
Transhumanist Theodicy — TheMadFool

Are you suggesting that humans can do what the bible-god couldn't : create a system that gradually evolves toward a more perfect world? I'm not a card-carrying Transhumanist, but I see evidence that evolution is progressing upward, and that the rate-of-progress accelerated after rational creatures emerged. Of course, the glitch in that rosy scenario is the resistance of irrational creatures to change.

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

This means that those who survive major upheavals in the environment aren't actually the fittest life-forms around; it's just that a particular set of traits help them ride out the storm. — TheMadFool

Yes. The traits that survive are the fittest available for the local conditions at that place & time. The apex dinosaurs had traits that were quite fit for their place & time, but the asteroid impact changed the conditions of the environment, and the rules of the fitness game. So little furry creatures -- and dinosaurs with feathers -- were more fit for the new milieu, than the old dominant species with cold blood and/or scaly skin. Was it just the luck of the draw, that creatures had already evolved with the necessary traits for the next phase of evolution? :chin:

" We can see that natural evolution is circling around some future state, like a moth to a light." — Gnomon
Well said! — TheMadFool

That was a reference to the "Power of Absence" mentioned in the Anthropic Principle thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... sciousness

https://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar ... enz_xz.gif

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/ ... 1_HTML.gif

Not exactly. God achieves faer aims through humans, us. To cut to the chase, we are the means with which God achieves his ends - we're essentially tools for God with which, if all goes well, god can create paradise/heaven (transhumanism). — TheMadFool

The main problem with my thesis of an intentionally created universe is this : why? And why leave us, the apex creatures, in the dark about where & why the world is evolving as it does. Toward what end?

Ancient sages also pondered that question, and came up with a variety of solutions. As you noted, the fatalistic Greeks, among others, concluded that humans are slaves or "tools" of the gods, who do things the gods can't, or won't, do for themselves. So, it was common for those slaves to believe that they were doing "god's work", when they offered sacrifices of food, incense, and sometimes, human blood. They assumed that the gods needed those things, but without physical bodies, had to rely on semi-autonomous humans to do the actual laborious & messy work.

But, today, that notion -- which ruled for thousands of years -- sounds like nonsense to those of us in a post-slavery society. So, another, more modern, theory has emerged. It assumes that G*D, or the gods, are trying to create a perfect race of robots. So, without giving explicit instructions, they nudge and prod their automatons via emotions or brain-probes to create better & better social systems and technologies : the better to serve their Matrix masters. Although I am aware that humans have very limited freewill, I don't like to think of myself as a robot, controlled by some sinister central command.

So, my preferred scenario is similar to Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point theory. It assumes that God is reproducing him/herself. And the ultimate fate of the world is to become godlike ; perhaps, the son of God. Physicist & Cosmologist, Frank Tipler, believes that our illusory material world is actually composed of something like mathematical information (spirit), and concludes, like deChardin, that it is evolving toward a spiritual Singularity, directed by the mathematical laws of Nature. Some Transhumanists are less mathematically or spiritually-inclined, and assume that humans evolved by accident to the role of top ape, and are merely using their superior intellectual tools to create a technological Utopia -- no need for a higher power to intervene -- or to serve.

To be clear, I don't take the Omega Point theory as gospel. It's simply serves as a modern allegory, to update or replace the outdated religious myths of the past. AFAIK, this hopeful narrative is not a revelation from G*D, but merely an imaginary construct of the human mind, as it grapples with the otherwise pointless situation we find ourselves "thrown into", as babes in the wood, a mysterious world without any direct divine supervision : Heideggar's "Thrownness". Myths of the past typically implied that the "truth" was revealed to some wise or pious person long ago. But, I think those prophets merely made-up hortatory stories to suit the times.

However, for those who can believe, they gain a feeling of knowing the meaning of life, and the purpose of the world. That may be a Placebo Effect, but it seems to work quite well. Unfortunately, I have a problem with faith, so my belief is partial and provisional, pending more & better information, from which to fabricate a story that is a closer approximation to the Truth.

Omega Point :
Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, . . . ... "if this book is to be properly understood, it must be read not as a work on metaphysics, still less as a sort of theological essay, but purely and simply as a scientific treatise". . . . Teilhard's theory was a personal attempt in creating a new Christianity in which science and theology coexist. . . . When the earth reaches its Omega Point, everything that exists will become one with divinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

Intelligent Evolution : a modern myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf

Another plausible (highly probable) option is, for instance, "no mind behind evolution" and our minds are products of natural selection — 180 Proof

So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature?

A Selection is a voluntary Choice between alternatives, based on a value system. The "no mind behind evolution" assertion seems to imply that the "Selection" is just as random as the mutations. But Darwin used that term with domestic animal breeding in mind. And the breeder had a future goal in mind, which was targeted by his personal value system. So, you will have to come up with a different mechanism than Darwinism, if you want to eliminate the Mind behind the Selection.

To Select : carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

PS__Accidental "sifting", as in the orderly arrangement of rocks after a flood, may not appear to be a "selection". Yet, like a fish net, the weave is deliberately sized according to the preferred size of the catch. The rocks & fish vary in size, and are selected or rejected based on their inherent characteristics, but in accordance with the pre-determined criteria.

As for the issue of intelligence and mind, you said that the relationship between the two isn't one of necessity - we've successfuly separated the two as in AI (intelligence sans a mind). — TheMadFool

That is a common short-hand assumption, but it simply ignores the "artificial" in Artificial Intelligence. The artist, whose intelligence is imparted to the program, is the Programmer, who is seldom sans mind. And his intelligence is a product of eons of natural selection going back to the original programmer of Nature.

Artificial : made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,

So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature? — Gnomon
Natural selection. — 180 Proof

Yes. The selection process is "natural". But how did the criteria for those automatic choices arise in Nature? Darwin saw an analogy between human selection (animal breeding) and the weeding-out process of evolution. In this analogy, personified Nature plays the role of Breeder. But he didn't really mean that the natural Process itself made deliberate choices with a future goal in mind. Instead, his unspoken reference may have been to the Creator, that he was beginning to doubt. He later said that proposing a godless creation was "like confessing to murder"
By that, I assume he meant that he felt guilty for casting doubt on the Ultimate Explanation. And his uncertainty was exacerbated by his failure, admitted in The Origin of Species, to actually explain the origin of Life, which was a necessary precursor to the origin of species. And which seemed to evolve via an innate Logic. Ironically, that Logos is exemplified in the notion of Natural Selection. By another analogy, computer programs do their work in accordance with an "innate logic" (Boolean). And the origin of that syllogistic (rational) order was not a random accident, but was deliberately imparted by a rational & intentional Programmer. That's the "who" I was referring to. Natural evolution is the program, but who was the Programmer? :chin:

Darwin letter :
At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a “tendency to progression” “adaptations from the slow willing of animals” &c,— but the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his,
https://fs.blog/2014/11/charles-darwin- ... ph-hooker/

Evolutionary Logic :
These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin :
-- More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.
-- Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
-- Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
-- When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Secondly, if you haven't already noticed, the non-random nature of any given phenomenon (here evolution) forces us to entertain the possibility of a teleological factor in them for teleology manifests as non-randomness. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the people you are "reasoning" with do not accept the premise that Evolution is non-random and actually progressive -- moving toward some future state. That, despite scientific evidence against "blind chance" ruling evolution. It's as-if a designing Creator has been replaced with a random Robot. Evolution is cybernetic. But their random "creator" seems to be Blind Fate. :joke:


Evolution is often said to be "blind," because there's no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests
https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolu ... andom.html

The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way : genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. ... The result is non-random evolutionary change.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... sconcep_05

Evolutionary cybernetics :
Then, we need to study the evolution of goal-directedness, i.e. control systems.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOLCYB.html

In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.

Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. Unless you have a direct revelation from the supposed Intender. But we have the same issue with the Arrow of Time. Except for those who live in static Block Time, it is obvious that the progression of Time has a direction. But what target is that arrow pointing at? Those whose interpretation is based on scriptural evidence can state with confidence that the End of Time will be as described in the Apocalypse of John (revelation). And that horror-show may be what the anti-teleology folks are denying.

In my own speculations about the Telos of Time, I don't claim to know what the ultimate goal is. So, I merely note that the forward & upward progression of evolution seems to be toward more organized complexity, and higher levels of intelligence. And, since 2021 seems to be close to the beginning of an accelerating upward curve of compounding complexity and self-organization, the current state of the world is still in its infancy. And we have a long way to go, to reach god-hood -- if that Omega Point is actually in the cards. For me, it's just a guess. But self-organization makes more sense of the world to me, than the alternative of compounding Chaos.

Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology :
Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleo-logical explanations ... evolutionary change – the theory of natural selection, . . . . ___Francisco Ayala
https://escholarship.org/content/qt26s4 ... f2f87b.pdf

Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html


Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. — 180 Proof

I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.

Unlike scientists, philosophers are not sworn to uphold that short-sighted worldview. Instead, until recent times, most philosophers have followed Aristotle's example : to interpret the world based on First & Final Causes. The Mechanistic view works for pragmatic short-term science, like Chemistry & Biology. But for Astrophysicists & Cosmologists, the order & organization we find under our feet is also found everywhere they look, even back to the beginning of time. So, consideration of First & Final causes is not only legitimate, but mandatory.

Evolution -- Teleology or Chance :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170904?seq=1

Teleological Evolution :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

↪TheMadFool

Of course "evolution" is non-random, I've pointed that out from the start. Like e.g. the weather, it is to varying degrees also unpredictable. Non-random, unpredictable phenomena on that account, however, are not purposeful or do not progress toward any end goal. Chaotic systems are deterministic with regard to their initial conditions – thus, physus without telos. — 180 Proof

You and TMF seem to be talking past each other, as is common on this forum. Your perspective seems to be scientific & reductive, while his is philosophical & holistic. Thus, when you look at the "blooming buzzing confusion" of randomness, you see different things. For example, the Cosmic Background Radiation at first glance appears totally random. Yet, by comparison to an artificially created randomized map, the real pattern of thermal variations was found to be somewhat non-random -- implying that some unknown influence resulted in an organized pattern. Ironically, the large-scale structure of the universe looks surprising similar to the neuronal patterns of the human brain. Coincidence or Causation? Initial Conditions or First Cause? See below :

Here's another illustration of anomalous structure within a random distribution : if a series of coin flips turn-up heads 10 times in a row, it's surprising but not impossible -- seeming to defy the 50/50 odds. Yet, long strings of 1s or 0s occur naturally in chaotic systems on rare occasions. But "it takes, on average, 2046 flips to achieve 10 heads in a row." So, from a close-up (reductive) point-of-view, that departure from the norm is an exception, but not a miracle. However, such a low probability string of heads, could plausibly indicate "purposeful" intention; perhaps, that someone is cheating. In other words, a mind may be interfering with natural randomness by special "selection" skewing the odds. Therefore, from a broader perspective, the possibility of Teleology makes sense. Cheaters & Magicians make fools of those who watch too closely.

I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism. By definition a Mechanism cannot change its own inherent rigid step-by-step procedures. But an Organism can choose to adapt to a changing environment. That's why those of us who take a holistic approach to the world, often see signs of non-randomness that suggest a purposeful direction and goal-directed intention.

Structures in the microwave background radiation :
It is commonly taken for granted (with the notable exception of Gurzadyan & Penrose [5]) that the temperature distribution in the CMB is purely statistical being produced by the quantum fluctuations . . . . Therefore, it was very unexpected for us to find significant differences . . . The differences between real and artificial maps were both qualitative and quantitative.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2013.0116

Coin Flipping Scam : Note -- Derren Brown is a magician, whose trade is doing what seems impossible.
https://nrich.maths.org/6954/solution

# Which is a map of brain neurons, and which maps the structural pattern of stars? :
https://www.universetoday.com/148966/on ... -is-which/
https://www.universetoday.com/wp-conten ... rain-3.jpg

I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism.
Well, actually, I "see the universe" as an unbounded yet finite, hyper-dimensional computational system of lower dimensional, entropic-fractal structures & nested sub-systems (i.e. cosmological holism). — 180 Proof

I apologize for accusing you of a reductionist worldview. From a brief review of the link, it seems that Cosmological Holism is technically similar, in some ways, to my own worldview of a mathematical information-based universe. But it doesn't translate its technical jargon into a scenario that non-mathematicians could appreciate. Also, it doesn't put its highly abstract notion into a context of older paradigms -- including Scientific Reductionism and Religious Theism. Also, speaking of "pseudo-philosophical", the CH articles tries to incorporate the far-out "calculations" of the String Theory fairly tale. Anyway, I think Cosmological Holism is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't acknowledge its own implications of a Cosmic Mind to bind independent parts into am interdependent (entangled) system.

If I were you, I'd be a little gentler in my criticism of TMFs notion of a mind-based reality. Wholes and Mathematical Principles do not exist in the material world, but only in minds -- which are themselves holistic functions of physical brains. Even the notion of a Cosmos is a mental concept that only exists as a philosophical category, to explain how all the zillions of material parts add-up to something greater than the computed sum -- just as the Mind is more than a bunch of neurons. Besides, I noticed that your link site is categorized under the heading of "Plato", best known for his Idealistic worldview.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/