No answer there. Just infinite answers of what caused what, going back to something that we barely know how, and has no answer to why.
No answer there. Just infinite answers of what caused what, going back to something that we barely know how, and has no answer to why.
Read my original statement again verbatim.
For one, going back all the way leads to “abiogenesis”, and that requires no why other than the mathematical self-organization of relational values.
I know you’re stating the obvious- there is very, very, … very little chance of a god. I agree. But when you say, “one more expression of evolutionary processes” it sounds like you are trying to make more out of the word, random, than there actually is. Random, by mathematical definition- which I know you appreciate- has no influencing factor. No answer to why is available.
But it is not random, chaos. It is probabilistic, which is a mathematical function, difference.
Is a probability measure a function?
In mathematics, a probability measure is a real-valued function defined on a set of events in a σ-algebra that satisfies measure properties such as countable additivity. Probability measure - Wikipedia
Probability is also dependent on density, such as encountered during the inflationary epoch after the BB.
Chaos is an amplification of tiny, random effects over long time periods. But those tiny random effects are still random. Chaos is not random. It is the long term effect of gazillions of random things.
When you write, “one more expression of the evolutionary process.” To what are you referring? I admit that I have a hard time recognizing the granularity at different points of this discussion. 
And even chaos doesn’t tell you why.
Everything evolves, each according to their interactive properties.
In Darwinian evolution it is natural selection for survivability. In physics evolution it is self-organization into greater complexity.
Scientists and philosophers identify nature’s missing evolutionary law
by Carnegie Institution for Science
In essence, the new law states that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity, and complexity. In other words, evolution is not limited to life on Earth, it also occurs in other massively complex systems, from planets and stars to atoms, minerals, and more.
Regardless of whether the system is living or nonliving, when a novel configuration works well and function improves, evolution occurs.
The authors’ “Law of Increasing Functional Information” states that the system will evolve “if many different configurations of the system undergo selection for one or more functions.”
“An important component of this proposed natural law is the idea of ‘selection for function,’” says Carnegie astrobiologist Dr. Michael L. Wong, first author of the study.
In the case of biology, Darwin equated function primarily with survival—the ability to live long enough to produce fertile offspring.
The new study expands that perspective, noting that at least three kinds of function occur in nature.
The most basic function is stability—stable arrangements of atoms or molecules are selected to continue. Also chosen to persist are dynamic systems with ongoing supplies of energy.
The third and most interesting function is “novelty”—the tendency of evolving systems to explore new configurations that sometimes lead to startling new behaviors or characteristics.
more… Scientists and philosophers identify nature's missing evolutionary law
That’s not a “why”, that’s an “is”.
Exactly. I don’t see where a “why” is answered by evolution even with the proposed extensions to the theory.
1 Like
I guess I’d like to know a specific why question that is supposed to be answered here.
WHY do you keep misinterpreting what I said? I stipulated that the “How” is what informs and where possible informs the “Why”.
I have been advocating for the How but you keep insisting that I am somehow advocating for the “Why”,
Why is that???
Because you said this
Apparently you think we are informed of something, and what? Is it supposed to be obvious? Because it’s not. The mystery is not cleared up.
1 Like
I did not say that the how clears up the mystery. I said the how clears up a lot of the mystery based on the fact that knowing the how has cleared up a lot of the mystery.
Illness was suspected to be caused by demons because a person was bad, until we knew it was caused by bacteria because somebody else “gave” them to you.
Watch the Bonnie Bassler video !!!
But knowing how ** has not cleared up ALL of the mystery.** We don’t know All of the how yet!
So, let’s agree!!! Don’t add your interpretation to what I said.
Read what I said!!
I didn’t add anything. I had a question. You answered in a very confusing way. You’ve cleared up that you didn’t address the connection of knowing about evolution to having insight into why we are here.
Still wrong, but it’s no longer important. I think everybody is getting now.
I understand this. It’s clear. When you know how we got here that clears up a lot of mystery of how we got here.
1 Like
CFI 'puter gremlins must hate this post, I thought I’d posted it early yesterday morning, then late night. Only to come back later and find it hasn’t posted.
Heck looks like I didn’t get this posted after I finished it this morning. Sorry, was a crowded morning with many distractions. Excuse this tardy submission.
Later
Maybe this time. Time to run . . .
Wow
It’s not about facing the void so much as facing who you yourself are. Full Stop.
Besides, the void, isn’t that death? Pretty much a concern of every human on one level or another, that’s where religions came from. So I don’t get why you raise that?
Science is where you can find all those pieces of that puzzle.
This feels like some variation of Chalmers’ impossible Hard Problem.
"How can I explore this universe as an evolved being?”
I don’t have a road map to learning. That requires a self-starting curiosity and thirst for understanding. Seek and ye shall find, and all that. Science is the vehicle for learning.
For me and what I’m writing about - it is about recognizing a fundamental benchmark. It’s about how we frame our outlook upon all we experience.
Or put another it’s about our intellectual Frame of Reference.
Appreciating the implications of this most fundamental observation.
Our body/mind is the product of Earth’s interactive evolution - our mind is the product of our body.
That carries constructive implications with it, but there is prerequisite learning and understanding that must be achieved before those word can make much sense on a personal level.
Still with that simple deep down visceral understanding (as opposed to a postcard reading) comes a whole serious of understanding that today’s philosophy and theology can’t help but miss by virtue of it’s utter self-centeredness - even though the evidence is woven throughout scientific understanding.
The undercurrent of most western society is Abrahamic - Christian theological/philosophical with most all our understanding being processed through that self-absorbed and self-serving sausage maker. Of course, this is just a fractal of the biological world and all other living creatures, are likewise self-absorbed and self-serving. We are a reflection of the natural world.
The issue these days is, we acquired the powers of Gods, without any of the wisdom to wield those powers constructively. By and large western expansion and modernization possesses all the thoughtfulness of a spoil rich brats alcohol soaked fraternity parties.
We’ll never escape our self-importance, that been bred into us - but to deeply understand the Physical Reality ~ Human Mind(scape) divide, is a good healthy kick in the ass. One that dislodges our self-assumed supremacy most humans feel towards all that stuff in our head. It’s sobering, plus the layers of scientific understanding become more self evident, the connects beyond our Ego start getting recognized. One’s self importance diminishes, all the while there’s an increasing appreciation for the world you are embedded within. In a sense that is much deeper than our current default: “What can it do for me/us humans.”
I hope some of that makes sense to a few.
Lordie, I see I missed the party, and now I have to run off before even looking at any of other comments. But I don’t mind, we got another scenic drive ahead of us, over the passes again and on to Black Canyon of the Gunnison, then, Glenwood Spring for the night and on to Denver - then a silent drive back home for me digesting the past week. It’s been a fun hosting this 20 year old, who’s easy to get along with, same age I was when I went on my overseas adventure. Plus the visiting, old memories and haunts galore, memory lane and the clash of memories piling up. A good time was had, even met a couple old acquaintances, and some job sites
Looking forward to when I have the time to get back to CFI and catch up.
. . . . . . .
I’m sorry CFI 'puter bots - I’m sure it was connectivity issues totally removed from CFI 
I’m not comparing your themes, I’m comparing your logic. Look at what the inthedarkness says and evaluate how he states his case. He makes no real attempt to connect his claim to his conclusion. It’s assertion, “look at the void then you’ll see things his way”. Then, look at how you present your body/brain/evolution and assert that will result in seeing things a certain way. How are they different.
Have a good day.
Mine are built upon what the science has been teaching us.
Self-absorbed and Self-serving is pretty specific and the examples are infinite.
It’s our behaviors and outcomes that speak for themselves, but then you belong to the Pinker school of it’s all cool, our western form of progress is the best of all worlds.
To me that holds about as much substance as inthedark’s struggles.