Jump to content

Is the human imagination -- and beyond -- the goal of evolution?


Recommended Posts

A crazy question. This is the idea:

Nature complexifies itself through time, and at an accelerating rate. This complexification is the fundamental evolution of reality.

This evolution also ascends into higher dimensions of experience/expression as time rolls on, meaning:

First, it expresses itself as the evolution of space and cosmic matter: stars, galaxies, planets. Next, through biology: the self-evolution of a physical body, and a higher dimension of experience. 

This Complexifier is always going faster. Its evolution is toward the form or dimension in which it can change the fastest: from space, into biology, and now through intelligence and imagination, the most free and liquid dimension in the universe.

This implies that mankind, expressing itself using his/her mind and imagination -- and making imagined things into 3-dimensional objects -- is somehow the purpose of biology; the purpose of the universe itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

Nature complexifies itself through time, and at an accelerating rate.

Citation needed

Quote

This implies that mankind, expressing itself using his/her mind and imagination -- and making imagined things into 3-dimensional objects -- is somehow the purpose of biology; the purpose of the universe itself.

Don't anthropomorphize nature. She hates that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

A crazy question. This is the idea:

Nature complexifies itself through time, and at an accelerating rate. This complexification is the fundamental evolution of reality.

This evolution also ascends into higher dimensions of experience/expression as time rolls on, meaning:

First, it expresses itself as the evolution of space and cosmic matter: stars, galaxies, planets. Next, through biology: the self-evolution of a physical body, and a higher dimension of experience. 

This Complexifier is always going faster. Its evolution is toward the form or dimension in which it can change the fastest: from space, into biology, and now through intelligence and imagination, the most free and liquid dimension in the universe.

This implies that mankind, expressing itself using his/her mind and imagination -- and making imagined things into 3-dimensional objects -- is somehow the purpose of biology; the purpose of the universe itself.

Are we talking established Science or speculation here ?

If speculation what about some supporting facts, not involving fantasies like dimensions of experience ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

Lol considering WE are a product of nature, anthropomorphization is not only inevitable, it already happened. 

So your response to a request for clarification and a bit of humor is to attack the humor.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

The OP sounds like a manifesto excerpt from a religious cult.   Why is it in a biology forum?   

Partly because nobody had reported the thread as being a problem, but I've taken care of that. The next step is to see if the OP actually engages in worthwhile discussion or continues to be coy.

2 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

How can you be sure? Biology is an miraculous array of creativity and complexity, how can we know anything definitive about it?

It's not miraculous, strictly speaking, and you are suggesting we know nothing definitive about biology, which is a rather outrageous claim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

How can you be sure? Biology is an miraculous array of creativity and complexity, how can we know anything definitive about it?

Just because something is complex that does not mean you can't know anything definite about it!

How could there be an end goal in evolution?  If there was there was then there would need to be a plan, if there was a plan then there would need to be a planner.  There is no evidence of a plan or a planner, so the default position is there is no end goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

How can you be sure? Biology is an miraculous array of creativity and complexity, how can we know anything definitive about it?

!

Moderator Note

Science. How do you think you know biology is so complex? Science.

We need some here. We can help you better understand some of the complexities involved in your ideas if you're willing to learn mainstream explanations from the members in this sub-forum. If you're trying to support your own non-mainstream ideas scientifically, I'll move this to our Speculations sub-forum.  Either way, your part of the discussion should be less hand-wavy, with at least some evidence you can use in support.

We don't do WAGs here, and we don't waste (much) time with trolling. If you think you have a good science discussion about this in you, have at it.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

Science. How do you think you know biology is so complex? Science.

We need some here. We can help you better understand some of the complexities involved in your ideas if you're willing to learn mainstream explanations from the members in this sub-forum. If you're trying to support your own non-mainstream ideas scientifically, I'll move this to our Speculations sub-forum.  Either way, your part of the discussion should be less hand-wavy, with at least some evidence you can use in support.

We don't do WAGs here, and we don't waste (much) time with trolling. If you think you have a good science discussion about this in you, have at it.

 

This question is the central pursuit of both orthogenesis and teleology. These were the fields of the past, now re-emergent and represented by the new fields of big history and cosmic evolution.

The link below is a great article written by Harvard astrophysicist Eric Chaisson concerning the subject:

"In turn, we can learn a great deal about cosmic evolution in general by studying the principal complexifying stages and its underlying processes that created us in particular."

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/384912/

I believe this justifies the existense of the thread.

To be fair, I discovered this article just now, while searching for scientific support of my idea. I didn't know such a trove of information concerning The Complexifier existed! I guess I don't need you guys anymore haha jk

Edited by Brian King of Trolls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

This question is the central pursuit of both orthogenesis and teleology. These were the fields of the past, now re-emergent and represented by the new fields of big history and cosmic evolution.

The link below is a great article written by Harvard astrophysicist Eric Chaisson concerning the subject:

"In turn, we can learn a great deal about cosmic evolution in general by studying the principal complexifying stages and its underlying processes that created us in particular."

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/384912/

I believe this justifies the existense of the thread.

What part of the paper? Is it the part where he says that "no compelling evidence exists that evolution itself is progressive or directed (as in “movement toward a goal or destination”)" or the two other times he says something quite similar?

How does one define complexity, and how is it measured? The author suggests that this is not currently well-defined, as they offer a definition of their own.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

To be fair, I discovered this article just now, while searching for scientific support of my idea. I didn't know such a trove of information concerning The Complexifier existed! I guess I don't need you guys anymore haha jk

I don't see anything funny in this.

I am glad you decided to take things more (scientifically) seriously though.

 

So your speculation is that increase of 'complexity' (depending upon how you define the term) is a driver of processes in a similar way to those of minumum energy or maximum entropy ?

How does this work with the Second Law maximum entropic 'hot death' of the universe ?

Maximum entropy is often aligned with minimum complexity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What part of the paper? Is it the part where he says that "no compelling evidence exists that evolution itself is progressive or directed (as in “movement toward a goal or destination”)" or the two other times he says something quite similar?

How does one define complexity, and how is it measured? The author suggests that this is not currently well-defined, as they offer a definition of their own.

 

I agree, he doesn't support my telelogical proposition. What the article illustrates is that the study of complexity and cosmic evolution are serious scientific fields. So although  the OP is avant garde and somewhat inappropriately mystical, it is nonetheless a valid question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't see anything funny in this.

I am glad you decided to take things more (scientifically) seriously though.

 

So your speculation is that increase of 'complexity' (depending upon how you define the term) is a driver of processes in a similar way to those of minumum energy or maximum entropy ?

How does this work with the Second Law maximum entropic 'hot death' of the universe ?

Maximum entropy is often aligned with minimum complexity.

Great questions. This section of the previously linked article addresses these concerns, (and obviously you can read the article itself for more info:

Recent research, guided by huge new databases detailing a multitude of complex systems, offers rational answers to some of the above questions. Growing order within “islands” of complexity such as galaxies, stars, planets, life, and society is outpaced by great “seas” of increasing disorder elsewhere in the environments beyond those systems. All such complex systems quantitatively obey the valued precepts of modern thermodynamics, especially frontier nonequilibrium thermodynamics. None of Nature’s organized structures, not even life itself, is a violation (nor even a circumvention) of the celebrated 2nd law of thermodynamics. Both order and entropy can increase together, the former locally (in systems) and the latter globally (in surrounding environments). Thus, we arrive at a central question lurking in the minds of some of today’s eclectic thinkers (e.g., see [2630]). Might there be a kind of essential Platonism at work in the Universe—a general principle, a unifying law, or perhaps a surprisingly simple process that naturally creates, organizes, and maintains the form and function of complex systems everywhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2021 at 11:46 AM, Brian King of Trolls said:

First, it expresses itself as the evolution of space and cosmic matter: stars, galaxies, planets. Next, through biology: the self-evolution of a physical body, and a higher dimension of experience. 

Actually, those processes are (by the laws of thermodynamics) driven by a net reduction in organisation in the universe.

It's true that trees grow, but it's also true (and a necessary part of evolution) that trees die.

The expectation is that the universe will end up cold dull and empty.

 

Your problem is only looking at yourself and the things near, and like, you.
We may be getting more complex; so is life.

But the universe isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

Great questions. This section of the previously linked article addresses these concerns, (and obviously you can read the article itself for more info:

Recent research, guided by huge new databases detailing a multitude of complex systems, offers rational answers to some of the above questions. Growing order within “islands” of complexity such as galaxies, stars, planets, life, and society is outpaced by great “seas” of increasing disorder elsewhere in the environments beyond those systems. All such complex systems quantitatively obey the valued precepts of modern thermodynamics, especially frontier nonequilibrium thermodynamics. None of Nature’s organized structures, not even life itself, is a violation (nor even a circumvention) of the celebrated 2nd law of thermodynamics. Both order and entropy can increase together, the former locally (in systems) and the latter globally (in surrounding environments). Thus, we arrive at a central question lurking in the minds of some of today’s eclectic thinkers (e.g., see [2630]). Might there be a kind of essential Platonism at work in the Universe—a general principle, a unifying law, or perhaps a surprisingly simple process that naturally creates, organizes, and maintains the form and function of complex systems everywhere?

I can't tell if this is a single quote or a pastiche of quotes or if it is your own work with references. (if it is your own, although misguided its good work).

A bald statement that something does or does not obey the Second Law is not sufficient.

We need a chain of reasoning, starting from agreed known facts, leading to the claim as a final conclusion, all stated here.

I asked you to define your version of complexity.

Instead of an answer you have introduced more new words such as order and disorder without definition.

Please discuss this properly.

According to what I know about Plato, he was about simplificaction not complexification.

He believed in so called perfect or ideal systems, the simpler the better.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

I agree, he doesn't support my telelogical proposition. What the article illustrates is that the study of complexity and cosmic evolution are serious scientific fields. So although  the OP is avant garde and somewhat inappropriately mystical, it is nonetheless a valid question.

Which are you wanting to discuss? The teleological question, or complexity? You can't bootstrap one off the other, since neither one represents mainstream science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, studiot said:

I can't tell if this is a single quote or a pastiche of quotes or if it is your own work with references. (if it is your own, although misguided its good work).

A bald statement that something does or does not obey the Second Law is not sufficient.

We need a chain of reasoning, starting from agreed known facts, leading to the claim as a final conclusion, all stated here.

I asked you to define your version of complexity.

Instead of an answer you have introduced more new words such as order and disorder without definition.

Please discuss this properly.

According to what I know about Plato, he was about simplificaction not complexification.

He believed in so called perfect or ideal systems, the simpler the better.

 

 

The previous quote is a section from the article The Natural Science Underlying Big History, written by Eric J. Chaisson. His credentials are as follows:

Chaisson graduated in physics from University of Massachusetts Lowell in 1968 and earned his PhD at Harvard in 1972. He has held professorial appointments at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Space Telescope Science Institute, and Tufts University, where he was for 20 years director of the Wright Center for Science Education while holding research professorships in the department of physics and in the school of education. He is now back at the Harvard College Observatory and also serves with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard, where he teaches an annual undergraduate course on the subject of cosmic evolution that synthesizes the essence of astrophysics and biochemistry.

Chaisson has published nearly 200 papers in professional journals and written a dozen books, several of which have won awards, such as the B.J. Bok Prize[1] (Harvard) for astronomical discoveries, the Smith-Weld Prize (Harvard) for literary merit, and the Kistler Award for increasing understanding of subjects shaping the future of humanity. He has also won scholarly prizes from Phi Beta Kappa and the American Institute of Physics, a Certificate of Merit from NASA for work on the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as fellowships from the Sloan Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences.

you called this man's work "misguided". Haha certainly not. Read the article, and if you can comprehend it, it answers all your questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

The previous quote is a section from the article The Natural Science Underlying Big History, written by Eric J. Chaisson. His credentials are as follows:

Chaisson graduated in physics from University of Massachusetts Lowell in 1968 and earned his PhD at Harvard in 1972. He has held professorial appointments at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Space Telescope Science Institute, and Tufts University, where he was for 20 years director of the Wright Center for Science Education while holding research professorships in the department of physics and in the school of education. He is now back at the Harvard College Observatory and also serves with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard, where he teaches an annual undergraduate course on the subject of cosmic evolution that synthesizes the essence of astrophysics and biochemistry.

Chaisson has published nearly 200 papers in professional journals and written a dozen books, several of which have won awards, such as the B.J. Bok Prize[1] (Harvard) for astronomical discoveries, the Smith-Weld Prize (Harvard) for literary merit, and the Kistler Award for increasing understanding of subjects shaping the future of humanity. He has also won scholarly prizes from Phi Beta Kappa and the American Institute of Physics, a Certificate of Merit from NASA for work on the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as fellowships from the Sloan Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences.

you called this man's work "misguided". Haha certainly not. Read the article, and if you can comprehend it, it answers all your questions.

 

This is the third time I have asked for supporting information, in the form of your definitions or supporting rationale of simple terms you have introduced to the thread.

The fallacy of appeal to authority in not acceptable support.

Reported for trolling.

Reported for trolling

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Which are you wanting to discuss? The teleological question, or complexity? You can't bootstrap one off the other, since neither one represents mainstream science.

My question is the title of the OP: Is the human imagination -- and beyond -- the goal of evolution?

The question is based on the fact that nature complexifies through time, and it ascends into higher dimensions of expression and experience. From cosmic, to biological, to cultural/psychological/imaginational. The article establishes these as scientific facts.

My assertion goes further than the articles, claiming the creation of the human imagination, and other phenomena like it, is the purpose of the universe. This is because complexification is a fundamental movement of the universe, since the Bang itself. Therefore, the most complex object at any given moment is the center of the cosmic manifestation. This complex object is the human mind and the imagination contained therein.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

His credentials are as follows:

!

Moderator Note

You were asked for a science discussion, not credentials 

You need to start addressing the points raised, and in a substantive way. Immediately.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

This is the third time I have asked for supporting information, in the form of your definitions or supporting rationale of simple terms you have introduced to the thread.

The fallacy of appeal to authority in not acceptable support.

Reported for trolling.

Reported for trolling

 

This is not a troll. It is a sincere question that apparently is beyond your comprehension. My definitions are the same as Mr. Chaisson's, and his work is heavily sourced with 50+ citations.

The only original contention I have is there is purpose to the universe, which I acknowledge Mr. Chaisson does not support. However, this has been a question in science/natural philosophy for thousands of years, therefore it is a valid pursuit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

My question is the title of the OP: Is the human imagination -- and beyond -- the goal of evolution?

The question is based on the fact that nature complexifies through time, and it ascends into higher dimensions of expression and experience. From cosmic, to biological, to cultural/psychological/imaginational. The article establishes these as scientific facts.

!

Moderator Note

The article proposes a definition of complexity, it does not establish it as a fact. Our rules require speculation being backed by more than further speculation.

Pick one.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.