BothAndBlog Forum

Anthropic Principle meets consciousness
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ousness/p1

How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such complexity? — 3017amen

Scientists used to focus on the Random Mutation element of Darwinian Evolution, probably because it eliminated any notion of divine creation. But, especially since the Information Age, more attention has been paid to Natural Selection, as a means to choose from among the novel structures produced by accidental aggregation. Now scientists are using the basic principles of Evolution to design systems that will try millions of options virtually, in order to select the one that produces the best fit for their stated purposes.

Those programmers must begin by establishing Initial Conditions as a starting point that seems to be close to the desired outcome, Then they add Rules & Standards (laws) to guide the program in the right direction. But the actual processing of that setup information is basically a random sequence of trials & errors, and re-tries, as the imperfections are weeded-out. The final solutions are often unexpected, and somewhat complex, but tend to be less complicated than some of the rejected options. So, the goal is not complexity per se, but optimum organization of components. The Intelligence of the programmer is encoded into the program to serve as a value system to guide the selection mechanism. The selection criteria (choices) are able to extract functional organization from dysfunctional disorder.

If you think of Natural Evolution as a program, with pre-set limits (conditions), and a means to generate a variety of novel solutions (random mutations), plus design criteria (laws) to define the best fit for a particular role (niche) in the ecosystem, then the notion of a Programmer, with values & intentions begins to make sense. You were correct to imply that Randomness typically results in disorder & entropy. So, some design intent is necessary to produce functional organization & fruitful conducive complexity. Therefore, we can guess that the path from simple beginnings (raw matter) could eventually lead to organized complexity (brains), and thence to novel functions, such as self-directed Minds.

The Human Mind is not a concrete thing, but the abstract function of the most complex system (brain) in the universe. The neural network may even utilize evolutionary principles to optimize control of the body. And a mental self-image provides the necessary distinction between self & other. So, how could genetic accidents and random mutations explain such functional complexity? The world system (nature) must have been designed (programmed) to work toward that end : The Anthropic Principle. But, the evolutionary program hasn't halted yet. So the ultimate output may require even further refinement, and remains to be computed.


Evolutionary Computation :
The method: evolutionary computation. EC is a computational intelligence technique inspired from natural evolution.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/co ... omputation

Chaos is not randomness. — 180 Proof

That's a fact, Jack! And, as Banno said : "Natural selection is not random, nor chance". The Greeks vaguely understood that Nature was characterized by two opposing forces : Good vs Evil, Or, what we now call constructive Energy and destructive Entropy, or future-oriented Positive vs dead-end Negative. So Plato proposed a scenario -- based on intuition, not empirical science -- in which orderly Cosmos was organized from disorderly Chaos by divine Logos (reason). But, modern Chaos theorists have found that in every disorganized system there is a "seed" of hidden order. So, it shouldn't be surprising that the random element of evolution is offset to some degree by the non-random action of Natural Selection. Hence, it's the logical act of "selection" that extracts Order from within Disorder, and Cosmos from Chaos. That's also why Banno's terse epigram is a true statement. And your equally brief assertion is correct, but incomplete.

Therefore, we -- you and I, as philosophers -- need to complicate those succinct quips by asking "why"?. Why, and How, did increasing degrees of organization emerge from an inherently disorganized process of un-guided roiling atoms? Indeed, how could our organic world arise from such an un-promising beginning as a cosmic explosion (big bang) in nothingness?. As in the OP, how could Mind emerge from dumb Matter? Logically, there are only two explanations : A> the familiar creative system of laws we call "Nature" has always existed, eternally. Or B> some other mysterious creative Cosmic "entity" has always existed. So, which is the hidden creative "organizing force" in Nature that makes your statement a fact?

Since the Enlightenment, a hidden divinity is not a permissible solution to any mystery. So answer <A> is the preferred choice for most Materialists : matter naturally contains the hidden seeds of organization, and it has always repeatedly created baby universes for no particular reason. In which case, the hypothetical Multiverse is given most of the basic characteristics of a God : eternal, infinite, creative. But not the most important features for emerging order : Intelligence & Intention. Hence, the Multiverse creates its offspring via a blind, stochastic process of one accident after another, with no teleological direction at all. This seems to go counter to your assertion that Chaos is not really random, but has some hidden inherent tendency-toward-meaningful-order, that we know only by inference. Also to Banno's denial that evolution is a game of Chance. So, how does future-oriented Probablity arise from dis-oriented Randomness? Or how do those opposites harmonize? And how does the "Arrow of Time" emerge from directionless haphazard Change?

Considering those open questions, the OP query was not answered, but merely brushed-away with mis-direction. Wherefore then, the did the ordering and organizing principles of Nature originate? To say "they are innate", suggests a humanoid Mother Nature fostering and disciplining her beloved children. But the typical picture of the non-motherly Multiverse has no explanation for the emergence of Love & Hate, or any other "Intentional Stance" (consciousness) from the blind, random "confluence of atoms". If Nature is "not a game of chance", then it must be guided by some teleological intention. It's as if, Mother Nature nurtures aspirations for the future of her children. So, how do you explain why "Chaos is not Random"? Is somebody cheating? :joke:


Anthropic principle :
The anthropic principle is a group of principles attempting to determine how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in a particular type of universe to start with. In other words, scientific observation of the universe would not even be possible if the laws of the universe had been incompatible with the development of sentient life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the notion that the universe seems to be fine tuned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Hidden Order :
How Adaptation Builds Complexity
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183954.Hidden_Order

Hidden Order in Chaos :
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science ... -in-chaos/

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative agency that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : "The creative impulse of Evolution"; "the power to enform"; "Logos"; "Directed Change".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Nonlinear dynamic systems are deterministic. — 180 Proof

Maybe. But are they predictable? And what does that have to do with the OP?

Regarding Non-linear Dynamic Systems, neuroscientist Terrence Deacon discusses the spooky phenomenon of "Strange Attractors" in chaotic systems. Those so-called "attractors" cause somewhat deterministic behaviors, but there is nothing there to cause the attraction. Deacon calls this "the power of absence". I interpret this natural feature in terms of evolution, which similarly seems to be drawn toward a future state that does not yet exist. As Deacon notes, most scientists are oblivious to the teleological signs in nature, probably because they prefer to think that the evolutionary system is doing a random walk instead of a purposeful deterministic march.


Strange Attractor :
In Chaos Theory and Dynamic Systems, a Strange Attractor is a mathematical value, or point in space, that seems to pull the elements of the system into warped orbits, like planets around the sun. What’s strange about these mathematical “objects” is that there is no mass at the center of orbit except a numerical value. Its “pull” is statistical instead of gravitational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

Power of Absence :
"A causal role for absence seems to be absent from the natural sciences.”
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

Jacques Monod : "The central problem of biology is how could purposeful systems have emerged from a universe with no purpose?"

Charitably, G, you've been playing tennis without a net for a long ... long ... long ... time. — 180 Proof

Maybe. But you just hit one into the net. :joke:

but whether the two possibilities - a god-created universe vs a universe without one - can be distinguished from each other in the first place! — TheMadFool

That's exactly why Pantheists and PanEnDeists equate G*D with Nature. As Spinoza concluded, "god sive nature" : god or nature, same thing -- no distinction. The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe. Multiverse enthusiasts assume the latter, but they have no empirical evidence to support their faith in eternal Nature.

The Big Bang doesn't seem to be an issue since god is seen as somewhat of a supreme creator and if the universe is self-created, as it is in an atheist's mind, god, again, equates with the universe. God creates the universe, the universe creates itself; ergo God = the universe. What do you think? — TheMadFool

Sounds like Atheist = God. :joke:

I think that the crux of the Creation question is that ultimately something must have been self-created in order for anything to exist in a physical form. For Spinoza, that ultimate "something" was "god sive nature", and he thought that Nature was eternal. But, of course, that was long before the Big Bang theory put a damper on that notion.

An anthropic principle is an anthropocentric bias — 180 Proof

Of course it is. Because the principle was observed from the perspective of humans. Everything people do is anthropocentric. What else would you expect : simian-centric? theo-centric? Science is supposed to aim for purely objective and unbiased observations and conclusions : the "view from nowhere". But, pure objectivity would be God's point of view from outside the universe, and outside the human body. Moreover, the term itself was coined and used by scientists, until its implications of divine design raised furious criticism.

Origin of Anthropic Principle :
The phrase "anthropic principle" first appeared in Brandon Carter's contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
In 1952 British astronomer Fred Hoyle first used anthropic reasoning to make a successful prediction about the structure of the carbon nucleus.
https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle

Anyway, biased or not, we can still say things about the world we're in.
The anthropic principle has anthropo-bias inherently. Or by design. ;) — jorndoe

You say that like being human is a bad thing. Are you a misanthrope?

I'm kidding. I know what you mean. But, just as rational thinking doesn't come easily to humans, cognitive biases seem to be inherent, even in those who aspire to objectivity. So, I tend to give pathetic humans a little slack. Besides, as I noted before, the term "Anthropic Principle" was created -- "by design" -- by objective scientists, to explain the parallels they saw between abstract laws of physics & initial conditions of evolution, and computer programs that are designed to reach a specific species of final output.

Misanthropy is the general hatred, dislike, distrust or contempt of the human species,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

Cognitive biases are inherent in the way we think, and many of them are unconscious.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/ho ... itive-bias

The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe." — Gnomon

Yeah. That's a wrap for Gnome. — Banno

You don't agree with my inference that the "Big Bang" put an end to the eternal universe assumption, and re-opened the question of First Cause??? I'm crushed! Guess it's time for "Gnome" to slink away from the slanted "light of reason". . . . . Or not. :groan:

Ironically, the sarcastic nickname came from Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who had presumed that Nature existed forever, or at least was in a steady state. Other astronomers, seeing the implications for an instantaneous divine creation event, began to imagine other explanations for the sudden appearance of our material universe (along with space & time & laws of nature) that avoided the logical inference of a law-maker. The most common alternative scenario is some variation on the never-ending Multiverse or the sci-fi Many Worlds conjectures. Moreover, the Inflationary Model, in which the whole universe popped into existence in a fraction of a second, sounds more like a miracle than even the biblical creation in seven days.

After many years of myth-making, they still have no physical evidence to support their hypothetical models, taking for granted that the laws of Nature, and their embodiment in matter are eternal -- hence no need for a Lawgiver. So, those imaginative alternatives are not yet empirical facts. In fact, you could call The Multiverse a materialist's creation myth, starring magic Matter. Fortunately, philosophers are not bound to a belief in an infinite & unbounded universe, So, they are able to see the logic behind Aristotle's necessary First & Final Cause axiom for the chain of causation.

So, the gnarly gnome will continue to explore all plausible answers to those open questions. Re-opened by the calculations of a finite beginning, as revealed by hard-nosed empirical scientists, following the astronomical evidence where it led : to a singular point (a question mark) at the beginning of Time.

Albert Einstein, in his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, dedicates a chapter to this idea, as its title suggests: The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. In the words of us laypeople, Einstein – among others – suggests a “spherical” universe, one in which we can venture out in a straight line, and circumnavigate back to our starting position. But how is such a cosmos possible, let alone fathomable?
https://futurism.com/finite-yet-unbounded
Note -- That sounds like circular reasoning, in which you end-up right back where you started.

The Aristotelian universe was a finite bounded sphere. But it was also eternal---unbounded in time.
http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jeffery/as ... spear.html

Right or wrong, what the Hawking article does is to demonstrate that the Aristotelian notion of causation does not apply at the cosmological level. — Banno

Is that a fact -- or an opinion?