Luc Turpin

Yup meant that I agreed with your statement. However, some believe that viruses are alive. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848616300085 The premise states that intelligence is all over nature; meaning those that are alive as opposed to those that are not. For clarity, maybe I should have said "all over the living natural world" or something to that effect. Did I imply that plants and organisms were not alive? That is certainly not my contention. Viruses are not made out of cells, plants and organisms are. I contend that virures are not alive, but some say they are (see above). And for assurance purposes, plants and organisms are indeed alive. As for intelligence, I would refer you back to one of my posts on plant intelligence. I actually said that mind affects randomness, not the opposite. As for mind being a source of complexity in nature, CharonY and iNow have compelling arguments that evolution does not favour any direction, including increasing complexity.

Yup! May be the defining line between non-living and living.

However, viruses are not considered living entities, but replicate! Therefore, my dead reproductive statement is not entirely correct.

I will then bleat nothing as I am not that inteligent😊 Good one😊

From page one of this thread: "Subjective experience, intelligence, consciousness are substates of mind; at least for me." Mind, your version or mine, would "act" upon events, thereby reducing randomness; what's wrong with that? Mind, my version or yours, is part of the universe as evolution is part of the universe; again, what is wrong with that? Sit still, close your eyes and wait until thoughts dissipate......this is mind; easy to experience, hard to define. Tell me now how three pounds worth with 60% fat and 40% water, protein, carbohydrates and salts do that? !- do I need to reference all that I have already referenced indicating that intelligence is widespread in nature? As for broadness, compare unintelligent non-living matter to intelligent living matter. Evolution is also all around in nature. Does it stop us from testing the claim? 2- Both survival and reproduction are required; dead reproductive organisms do not abound in nature.

1- Agree. 2- You cannot blame me for not having provided a "stable" description of mind as the neuro-field itself cannot even agree on such a definition. 1- Ok. 2- This works fine for me! 3- Then I came to this conclusion by myself and appear to have been incorrect in my assumption. a) you and INow have convinced me otherwise (e.g. that evolution does not move towards complexity; b) intelligence does provide a significant advantage and I have shown through referencing that big brains are not required. My contention though is not of increasing intelligence, but intelligence spread out through nature, and for this, I have made a compeling case. Mind needs living matter to express itself and the organism itself, its environment and circumstance would combine to determine what type of expression would occur. An unproven contention of mine. As stated before, you need to survive to get to reproduction and creation of offspring. Otherwise, nothing else really matters.

We are very weak and vulnerable, but our intelligence gave us a great edge in survival did it not? That is a surprise to me as I thought that it had been implicitly excluded from our evolutionary discussion. Then wrongfully, I believed that evolution was solely a matter of good luck you survive and bad luck you die. Then mind in whatever shape or form has a role to play in evolution?

1- Understood; 2- Hypothetical question that I was asking you 3- Agree. 4- Understood So, it is more of an ebb and flow process in the sense of evolution. There is no upward complexity mobility, but fluctuations based on environment and circumstance. Coming back to the topic at hand, I have great difficulty with the fact that evolution would not have benefited from the incredible power of intelligence. It provides a sizable advantage to those capable of using it. Is it not our main reason for our evolutionary success? Those that better adapt and control their environment are more destined to succeed? Why would intelligence not play a role in evolution?

Ok then! It is a misconception of mine.

1- You are correct in your examples. Are there nonetheless much more events towards complexity than towards simplicity, which would be an indication of trend or direction? This could be a misconception of mine. 2- All possibilities are on the table, but again, a long time ago complex lifeforms did not exist and now they do! Is this not indicative of something? There are sways from simpler to complex and from complex to simpler, but the overall trend seems to be upward! 3- This time I am not digging my heels; just trying to better understand. 4- Got that; complexity would be a direction if evolution was actually favouring this, but it is not. Complexity is not a bona fide given in evolution. It is not an intrinsic part of it. It might have happened just that way because of the environment and circumstances pushed it that way.

1- The situation might not be the same, but the need to do something about it, find a way to survive, is basically the same. 2- An example? Like jelly fish losing their capacity to sting in a non threatening environment, but recovering it when needed. If so, having both options (simple-complex reactions) and deploying one or the other depending on cricumstance, is it not more complexity? Or are you talking about organisms downregulating to a simpler life form with no capacity of recovery to their former complex serlves? If it is the latter, then I need to know more about it as I believed that this was possible only in very limited circumstances. Would that organism have a lesser chance of survival than its counterpart that preserved its more complex feature? 3- Higher complexity would not be a direction?

1- Agree that that which gets selected for is contingent upon the local environment and circumstances. But, are the circumstances not almost always the same? A defence measure is countered and a new measure is devised to counter the countering measure! More weapons in the arsenal of survival thus engendering more complexity. Outwitting the opposition is also a survival mechanism. 2- More complexity propagated by mind as an intrinsic factor of the living is indeed a direction, but one that you disagree with.

There are laws to be obeyed, and beyond that, randomness? chance occurences? probabilistic outcome? If intent there is, would it not only be for the living?

1- in their quest for survival, do organisms not deploy ever more complex strategies for survival? 2– survival or doom is the direction, is it not?

Is probability not a restricted form of randomness? There is certainly no intent nor volition in molecules. 1- should have stated that the author and I are asking the same question! Its the almost instantaneous nature of multi-circuit effect that begs the question of how can this operate by randomness 2- in its ongoing battle for survival doesn’t even the simple organism deploy more and more sophisticated counter measures to defend itself from predators? Also, agree that simple organisms are fundamental for life

Then there were simple organisms and now more complex ones. Why is this? I am saying that if mind was all over in nature, why would it not be a factor in evolution? And I did not say that more complexity was good; just said that it was so. Survival of fittest and wittiest, that is the direction I am supposing.

1- Agree that you can drive a galaxy through. The inflexion point is where inanimate matter turns supposedly into animate matter and no one knows so far how this was accomplished. That is the point, I suppose, where the capacity to acquire, conserve and use information came about. And that is where intent came into being for the living. 2- please tell me more Then there must be something wrong with his interpretation of data. Hopefully, I will obtain the it and we can both have a look at it.

1-Good point; so the composition and movement of molecules are therefore not random? 2- life may have appeared by chance, but had the capacity to acquire and integrate information from experience and then use this to plot the next move or outcome; hence, the direction towards more complexity to survive. A war of attrition.

My contention remains, molecules bump into each other randomly while living matter starts with randomness and then integrates experience into how best to survive. Where does information acquisition occur, at the molecular or animate matter level, I do not know! The intention was to post my last comment with the preceding one, not with the quote that showed up unintentionally.

There is then no real randomness baked into the universe if mind plays an integral role in it. The universe would not be a random occurrence and would have a direction to it. It would be a better explanation for the complexity found in nature.

Real randomness; baked-in, irreducible randomness, baked in to the universe Moving along

I am not getting this? I guess that it is intended for me. What did I find so problematic?

While waiting a response from the author, here is a link to advancements in imaging technology. For those interested in this kind of information-technology. http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/a-new-way-to-image-cells-with-vibrational-spectroscopy

1- all mechanisms that can change the genomic content occur randomly, correct? 2- I will try and obtain the research that seems to link thought and subunit diversity. I too find this incredible 3- My only contention here is that these findings might be relatively recent and thus unknown to most. If I can get the studies then both of us can interpret them Contacted the author, awaiting a response, hopefully!

1-He has been posting his summary of studies wth links on his internet site and now on X. I have looked at his linked studies and agree with his interpretation most of the time. 2- I thought that that would be the case, but if one would be aware of any convincing or coherent example it would be you. 3- yes, evolution is based on inheritance. However, would gene editing and splicing would have some sort of impact on evolution?. I guess not.