METAZOA, Animal life and the birth of the mind, Peter Godfey-Smith

Philosophy
61

All that is anthropomorphic and has nothing to do with reality as it has been measured by the natural sciences, which are based on the dynamic interaction of values ;
1 moon + 1 moon = 2 moons, they are attracted to and circle their sun via the combined forces of motion and gravity, but because they tend to travel in a straight line they settle each in a differently valued orbit, around their planetary host.

God plays no known role in this cosmic theatre, nor is it necessary. The only language the Universe cognizes is mathematical and value-based in essence.

One might make an argument that God is a mathematician, but that does not hold either. Mathematics is an abstract logical language, describing demonstrable functional interactive properties of the Universe.

If there is a “Guiding Equation” it will be contained in a mathematical law or equation of abstract but measurable values.

Cause and Effect (determinism) is one such fundamental physical law that rests on the results of mathematical interaction and processing of extant values

62

Only if the moons can’t procreate and of course they can’t. But if procreation is involved and there is no birth control, 1 + 1 does not equal 2. I’ve known this for a long time and yet there is always someone who goes, “Na Uh!” I see 1 male and 1 female in nature and have often found, without birth control, it does not equal 2. It equals more than two, be it human or other mammal.

1 Like
63

Maybe if you tried learning how to use the tools in this forum, like the quote feature, it would help. I commented on “unfalsibiilty”, something you said in comment #52. CC jumped in after that.

I don’t think it’s in the official list of fallacy, but never mind, we agree that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. But you haven’t said anything about how it’s not evidence for anything. That is, saying I can’t disprove God doesn’t prove anything. The burden of proof is on the God claim. I don’t claim there is no God, I state that I don’t believe any definition of God that I’ve ever heard.

Here is a list of philosophical problems. I’m not sure if they fit your definition or not.

This is where it gets worse. Definitely.

I’m aware that the criteria of falsifiability is being discussed, and that’s interesting, but there isn’t a place that is beyond it and that isn’t where God is. If your claim is not subject to testing, then we aren’t talking about truth in the way we talk about the truth of most other things existing.

Now that’s true. Which is why scientists don’t do it. And when non-scientists try to make a proof of God, scientists say, “that’s not proof”.

That conclusion did not follow from that line of logic. The rest of that paragraph is not helpful.

Your “abstract reality” paragraph is similar to a legal fiction. I think we understand each other there.

This is critical. It’s why I bothered responding to all of the above.

If you want to sanitize the God concept, fine, but that’s not why there are arguments and fighting and legal battles about the existence of God. You and I can have this nice discussion about proving God, but that’s not what the wars have been about. People have been killing each other over these unfalsifiable things that are absent of evidence. You and I can have a philosophical discussion of the cultural impacts of mythology throughout history, but when someone claims, “God is good”, and feels justified in killing me because I don’t believe in their God, then, absolutely, the question is if it’s a good or bad thing is the question.

The cultural shift that we live in now is from armies being able to enforce their belief that their god is good upon others, to a question of the value of religions. I’m seeing some religions working toward a more accepting, inclusive form of community building, and that’s great. I’m also seeing those same religions hanging on to creeds and claims that “you can’t disprove my God” somehow means something, and that’s bad.

1 Like
64

It’s more a question of physiology.
Recognizing that our Gods come from our thoughts - otherwise there’d be some way to scientifically study God.

That may be pretty impossible for a human (considering the millennia of religious indoctrination) to grasp, without a thorough understanding of what actually happened during Earth’s evolution.

I’m confused by your opening so want to clarify,

“Truth” is a mirage, it only exists within the parameters that we establish for its ad hoc usage…

Again, this has very little to do with “God” it’s about the human biological creature and that our thinking is produced from within our own body interacting with itself and the environment.

You’re missing the key point.
What I’m saying is not that, God does not exist.
It’s saying God is a figment of the human mind and experience - created by our body’s thought processes.
It’s saying that God is not a part of our physical biological natural Physical Reality, instead it’s recognizing God as a part of our Human Mind.

It’s not just a cute jingle, it’s the fundamental first base for gaining a realistic, valuable appreciation for our human condition and this incredible Earth that created us.

Right, and what is logic? It’s train of thought traversing your mind.

Where do you think your mind comes from.

This misunderstanding is a result of not fully absorbing what “recognizing the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide” is all about. Instead of a clear self-evidence division, you have a wavy-gravy muddled middle ground, mired within your intellect.

I agree, that is a horrible word, about the term, money is a “useful fiction”?

Beginning with the subjective assumption that God changes anything.

From my perspective people make that subjective decision to believe “God” changes things. There is plenty of evidence for people using God’s word to change things. But I’ve yet to hear of any evidence of God doing a dang thing besides being a character in our imaginative transactional story telling.

I can’t make sense of that. Don’t know what you’re driving at.

We’ve discussed it, but you’ve yet to hear my answers.

I didn’t say I agree with everything wolfhnd writes, sadly I have barely read the half of what he’s written, though that has to do with my limiting schedule these days. But, I do find him interesting, a fresh perspective to dance with.

65

Oh that reminds me, what do you have against the concept of: “emergence” ?
How else would we describe the differences that happen on the evolutionary ladder?

Heck or the differences in you, over the years, learning to crawl, walk, run, climb trees, walk down the aisle to get your diploma and start your career?

gotta run.

66

Through Braver Angels, I have been doing a lot of work on my listening skills. It’s something that is included in every short seminar or long course on how to deal with people, how to be civil, how to handle your family and your relationships. So I hope I don’t have to define what I’m talking about.

Included in listening skills, is knowing when someone is willing to have a back and forth interaction. I think the big problem in our polarized world right now is that we too easily write off others, based on the hat they are wearing, or a piece of jewelry, or if we hear one of their beliefs, we assume 10 more. But, you and I have been interacting for years. It’s sad really, because there is so much we learned together and that I learned from you. Then you started writing essays and making claims about things you saw, like Mark Solms. I did listen, and in Solms case, he had a debate online with another scientist, and I agreed with that scientist, not Solms, and that scientist said things I had already said. I have made efforts to reflect your answers and clarify your comments. But I just don’t like your answers, I don’t agree with them. That’s different from not hearing them.

I didn’t say you did.

67

No, that does not equate at all. Male or female has nothing to do with the addition of 1 + 1. That is a false equivalence.
1 + 1 has nothing to do with mating and begetting offspring. Plussing is not mating.
And mating is not done by 3 but by 2. So then the equation becomes 2 a(dult) + 1 b(aby) = 3 h(umans)

68

Now we are getting somewhere and you may note I anticipated your comment. Whether or not you think the cultural impact of god is good or bad is subjective. Everything else in the conversation leads to this. I will admit that I have trouble expressing myself clearly, I’m not a professional philosopher. I haven’t spent years of my life refining the arguments.

You have to start with understanding that cultures/societies are complex chaotic systems that are irreducible. You seem to like the idea of emergence. I said earlier in the conversation we have been having that it is a placeholder for ignorance. If you are a scientist you have to be a determinist. In the sense that every effect has to have a cause. That is another way of saying that initial conditions determine outcomes. That is basically the idea behind evolution. I’m just going to assume you are an evolutionist. From an evolutionary perspective it is a matter of how far back in time you look at initial conditions to see the chain of events that produces the current effect. The point in time that you want to start is subjective in the sense that it will always be arbitrary and somewhat related to ignorance. More recent events are more accessible as time and space dilute evidence. As a determinist however you would of necessity assume that everything we see in the universe today was determined when the universe came into existence. Setting aside of course the issue of true randomness. I don’t know and I don’t think anyone knows if true randomness is a thing. So we can just set that aside. When I was talking with write4u we kind of agreed that like is but that is another long discussion. In any case in a similar fashion I’m just going to accept the word emergence whatever that is.

So now we are talking about god. An idea that emerged almost everywhere in every culture. As a determinist I’m going to assume that god had a cause. It was selected for because it increased fitness. You may argue that it is just a matter of cultural drift that convergently evolved but drift gets corrected over time by selection. At this point I’m just going to cut this short and get to the punchline. As a determinist I’m going to assume that god leads to religion. That pattern was predetermined. Now we have to decide how god increases fitness.

Because of the value system that evolved in Western Civilization group selection has been rejected. That process is complicated and I don’t have the time to go into it. It is probably related to how Western Civilization evolved the concept of individual rights that are somewhat absent in other civilizations and that is related to environmental conditions. Most notably environmental conditions that encourage the ownership of small farms. I think the reader can piece that together on their own. In any case liberalism emerged as a result of individual rights. The concept of group selection has come to be seen as a threat to individual rights. For example the Nazis and their obsession with race is an example of a group that focused on group selection. It was a disaster not only for the world but for the Germans. So I will just agree that the concept of group selection is a threat to liberalism. The problem is that we focus on recent events because they are more accessible.

I’m going to skip a lot and jump to the next point. Assuming that god doesn’t actually exist we have to ask why it persists in the cultural genome. It seems unlikely it is just a bit of “junk” DNA. I think the difficult thing for people to follow is that religion evolved with other aspects of culture and the physical environment. Because of complexity and chaos you can’t actually separate it out as a unique phenomenon. It is all part of how civilization is a kind of artificial eusociality imposed on a non-eusocial species. What do eusocial species do? they go to war with other groups of their own species. Evidence in a way of group selection. Those groups that are more eusocial in the case of humans are selected for.

That leads to the next point. Religion doesn’t actually define culture, it is a reflection of culture. Again I do not have the time to lay this out completely. An analogy may be that an organ doesn’t define a species but all the organs taken together are what you call emergence. Religion survived because it increased eusociality. The eusociality that allows some cultures to conduct war more effectively than others and were selected for.
When civilization first emerged as city states it happened in places like Sumer where environmental conditions led to large scale agriculture. A system that had to be protected almost completely from the surrounding tribal societies. Tribal societies where eusociality was weaker. Extending that process into the future events tribal societies that were more or less eliminated by selection. Later you get larger scale societies such as the Egyptians and the source of their social cohesion was religion. The pyramids were not built by slave labor but ordinary people as an act of religious devotion. Not unlike how termites build a mound through cooperation. For the Egyptians in a way protecting their religion was protecting civilization or artificial eusociality.

It is all about what I was saying that abstractions become real through their interaction with physical reality. Everyone intuitively understands this and that is why humanism has replaced religion to extend group selection. The problem is complexity and chaos. Replacing religion it turns out is as complicated as building an artificial organ, say the brain. Things that evolve over time are really hard to duplicate.

As a final aside, the reason I’m here is that it is really hard to communicate with non-evolutionists. That turns out is most of the population. People will say they believe in evolution but that creates the same problem as with religion. Science has nothing to do with belief. To some extent that is why I have a problem with liberalism. You can say you believe in individual rights but what does that mean? Civilization as an expression of artificial eusociality has nothing to do with individual rights but rather individual responsibility. That takes us back to the problem people have understanding the bottom up nature of evolutionary “design” and abstract reality. That is related to how groups do not have agency but it is only a property of individuals. It is the secret to the way a preacher and Christian led the civil rights movement. When MLK said that we shouldn’t judge a person by the color of their skin but by the content of their character it was a reflection of how group rights are an illusion that runs counter to eusociality.

69

Oh that reminds me, what do you have against the concept of: “emergence” ?

It is not a big problem and I even used it in my reply to lausten if you have the time. My claim is that it is a place holder for ignorance. That is not a bad thing. It is only when you use it as an explanation that I have a problem with it. As a scientific determinist I assume that initial conditions determine final results. The intermediate steps are out of focus because of complexity and chaos. It is impossible to fill them all in. In practical terms that means we get lost in the details. The concept of emergence is a thinking tool not a reality that allows us to refocus. On what is up to the individual but a bit of humility is important.

70

Really?

No one here is. It’s not required.

I’m fine starting at the earliest point we can, which I would say was when spacetime became a thing.
\

Oh good.

Now I’ve lost your definition of “god”. Do you mean an actual discoverable being somewhere, something supernatural, something mysterious that might exist somehow but we can’t prove?

I would put that the other way around. And I could still be a determinist and say that.

If you say so. I didn’t really argue that. It fits with evolutionary psychology. I would phrase it as “the belief in god(s)”, but sure, that somehow helped tribes stick together.

Where did that come from?

Not really a hard question, if you phrase it as “belief in god(s)”.

Yes, we agreed on that a few times. So you don’t need to “lay it out”.

I wasn’t aware that had happened. About 4 billion people might disagree with you.

What were we talking about again?

71

[quote=“wolfhnd, post:68, topic:8495”]
Setting aside of course the issue of true randomness. I don’t know and I don’t think anyone knows if true randomness is a thing. So we can just set that aside. When I was talking with write4u we kind of agreed that like is but that is another long discussion. In any case in a similar fashion I’m just going to accept the word emergence whatever that is.

Let me sum this up. Most biological patterns are mathematical but not conscious, but some biological patterns are mathematical and acquire an emergent consciousness over and above the properties of the parts.

So now we are talking about god. An idea that emerged almost everywhere in every culture. As a determinist I’m going to assume that god had a cause. It was selected for because it increased fitness. You may argue that it is just a matter of cultural drift that convergently evolved but drift gets corrected over time by selection.

I don’t think so. The concept of God is not part of natural selection and evolution.
It is a mental invention by a common hominid ancestor. Apes worship, not because their “unseen powerful being in the sky” is good and benign, but quite opposite and is to be feared because it makes loud noises, and throws fires and water down from the sky and must be feared cause it can kill you .

At this point I’m just going to cut this short and get to the punchline. As a determinist I’m going to assume that god leads to religion. That pattern was pre-determined. Now we have to decide how god increases fitness.

I agree that the assumption of a god leads to worship, but this pattern was not pre-determined, because a thunderstorm is a result of chaos and not predictable.

But to an simple mind, a thunderstorm is a mysterious event played out by “unseen” but powerful sky-beings that like to wage war on occasion.

Dyeus Phter
The Indo-European god Dyeus Phter, meaning Father Sky, can be called the first and oldest known god in recorded human history. His existence can be traced back some 5000 – 7000 years ago.

And that God emerged in the imagination as an angry being that is to be feared even as it is invisible.

This early worship can be witnessed in Chimpanzees, where during a thunderstorm the Alpha male does a “rain dance” and display aggressive behavior toward that unseen sky being that makes loud noises and throws fire and water at his family making everyone miserable. The first instance of being subjected to the “wrath of god”.

1 Like
72

What if one uses the world as a description of an observed phenomena?

“As a scientific determinist” you say that as though it were a real thing. It is a human concept used to describe something we observe or experience. So we’re at the map and territory dilemma.

In real life, physical reality every action has a reaction is determined, but life isn’t a two planet model where determining factors can be easily identified and calculated. I hear a three planet model is very difficult, if not impossible. In the natural world, there are immeasurable amounts of determining influences in play all at the same time, with a past and varying degrees of momentum. And so on.

I simply think it’s presumptuous for philosophers to make these flat out statements about stuff like determinism, or emergent-properties, as if they had any authority to stand on. We’re all taking guesses, with insufficient knowledge of the whole system, it’s fun to do, but to many take themselves too seriously, get lost within their thoughts, forgetting about the absolute nature of physical reality.

.
.

Sure we live in a deterministic world, this action determines that outcome/reaction, but then the layers of complexity and time get involved and we lose all track of all the determining factors as they because infinite,"

(hmmm, here’s a cosmic philosophical thought: metaphorically we could see what’s happening - when all the determining factors meld into a singularity -
as THE moment that IS, . . . and then becomes part of history,
as life races you to the next situation. )

Don’t forget about the determining influences that your own behaviors, and time, and place impose on a situation. So in short, I think stuff like Determinism, even, no-freewill, is true enough, if you want,
but you’re still the one riding your horse, so you better pay attention.

Guess that’s pretty much the same thing, from a different angle.

Can you explain what you mean? I miss the point you are trying to make.

Have you ever experienced a lot of time with an infant long enough to watch it grow into a young inquisitive communicative kid, then an adult, or some such? Where is the “not a reality” in all those transitions?

Plus scientists have learned an awful lot about the changes that happen and the biological reasoning behind those changes that produce vastly different individual out comes within the same biological body.

How is that?

I don’t think that’s really accurate.

I’d put it differently.

The point being, Science has nothing to do with Blind Faith.

We’re human, we can’t help but believe in things, it’s how our minds operate. What is your relationship with the knowledge you possess? :wink:

The problem is with EGO, how personal to you take what you believe?

I’ve grown up believing things, including, science stuff I was taught, only to find that with the passage of years and decades, experience, new information, that much of what I believed was wrong -
such a ugly word - mistaken, naive, incomplete are all better.

With new information comes a wave of additional nuanced understanding, even revolutionary rearrangements in attitudes.

A healthy ego, listens, investigates, and has no problem with admitting I was wrong, I have a much better understanding now and I believe this and this, for such and such a reason.
Of course, with more evidence that understanding and my outlook will grow yet again. Real science people revel in those breakthrough moments, because we always seem to gain from the experience.

But then if our goal is as good an understanding as we can achieve. It requires real work and a sincere curious heart.

As opposed to puffing up (protecting & defending) EGOs,
and being all worried about the facades we build for ourselves,
and falling in line with hollywood nation thinking.

Wouldn’t MEME be a more apt description?

Not sure that was always the case. Didn’t the Catholic Church hierarchy do a lot of government and culture defining in its day?

73

Yes it does. 1 male plus 1 female does not always equal 2 and you are that person who goes “Nu uh! Not true!” Except it is true. 1 = 1 does not always equal 2 when it comes procreation. It often equals more than two and does equate. It has a lot to do with begetting offspring, because if you don’t get one female and one male together to do the wild thing and make a baby, then you get 1 animal separate and apart form the rest. You have to have 1 + 1 = 3 or more members or eventually you get a big fat 0 because they all die off. Nature does not do math the way mathematicians do. Nature has it’s own formula.

74

Let me just say to start with that I can’t keep up with all the comments. I usually try to respond to every comment but it is not going to be possible here for me to do that. I’m reading all comments but I will just respond to a few of them. Don’t feel like your feedback isn’t appreciate it is.

75

I don’t think anyone is able to respond to all comments. I think most of us reply to posts in which we have something to say.

76

Procreation is not deterministic, its probabilistic. You are citing a category error.

2 parents + 1 child = 3 humans.
2 parents + 2 children = 4 humans
How those children came to be is beside the point. It is just a simple addition.

If you want 1 to be 2 you are no longer dealing with a number but with a “set”.
A set can be any combination of numbers and sets can be combined.
1 set of 2 + 1 set of 2 = 2 sets of 2 = 4

The result always totals the number of objects involved.
Else it would not be an equation.

There is nothing “uncertain” or “mysterious” about addition.
1 + 1 = 3 does not equate, it is a false equation.

77

I’m not sure why we are having a problem here. All languages are abstract including the languages of math and logic. Whatever emergence is we can be certain it is not the thing itself. In addition to transferring information, languages provide us with thinking tools. I think we can just agree to disagree over whether emergence is a useful thinking tool.

How many people have died because their maps were inaccurate or they didn’t have one? I’m not trying to be hyperbolic here, I’m just pointing out that there are real world consequences that follow from the abstract representations. I used money as another example in a separate post but I don’t expect you to read all my posts.

Determinism like every other bit of language is abstract, I think we agree on that. In other words it isn’t real in the sense that science defines something as real. What you seem to be missing is that language as a part of culture is a long evolutionary process. As I said, the abstract becomes real through interaction with physical reality. The best example I have is human evolution itself.

We think of tools as physical objects but every tool is an imperfect physical or cultural representation of an ideal tool. They start as an abstract “concept” and that concept is physically or culturally produced as accurately as needed. Including the products of culturally evolved things such as logic and mathematics. The point is we want to be careful not to confuse the idea of a thing with the thing itself. Determinism is a tool that culturally evolved to allow us to avoid the pitfall of assigning agency where there is none.

We see agency everywhere because we evolved that way. It is not an accident. Seeing agency everywhere combined with the need for reductionism are part of the evolutionary process. The reductionism part is just a reflection of the limitations of the senses and intelligence. The agency part can be illustrated as follows. A deer hears the wind rustling the grass and assumes a predator. It bolts and takes the whole herd with it. It turns out it is better to assume agency than be eaten. The concept of determinism is a tool that allows us to break that instinctual inclination. It is more complicated than that of course because even in very simple life the mode of operation is that every effect has a cause. An amoeba moves towards food and away from poison. A kind of very limited intelligence. What it can sense and process is fairly binary. Since evolution is conservative it only has the abilities it needs. So reductionism is built into evolution. The agency part is more complicated. You can think of the chemicals in the amoeba’s environment to be analogous to the deer’s sense of agency. Scientific determinism decouples the observer or subject from the environment. It reverses the process and sees every cause as having an effect. Through experimentation it creates causes and observes the effect. The experimentation can take many forms including but not limited to complex statistical models. This is not a complete explanation, I’m just laying out a framework.

Now we can jump back to human evolution and put it in context. Humans do not have tools because they have large brains. They have large brains because tools allowed for diversion of energy away from the gut to evolve a large brain. The key is understanding that once you have a stone tool it was only a matter of time until you had AI by way of cultural evolution. The point here is that since the abstract, in this case a stone tool, interacts with physical reality and changes its meaning, the abstract through selection takes on the determinism of physical reality.

At this point, and I have previously covered it, we have to ask why physical and cultural determinism is rejected by many people. There is a bit of cultural evolution at work here as well. There is a problem with determinism and the freewill debate reflects it although in my opinion in a distorted way. The problem with determinism can be illustrated by a simple algorithm as follows.

Determinism no freewill, no freewill no human agency, no human agency no human dignity, no human dignity no morality, no morality no civilization.

What I think people find so frustrating about me is that I’m agnostic on the question of determinism and freewill. I’m a pragmatist. I’m interested in the consequences not “pure logic” or the details of the scientific explanations. For example my argument with the religious who do not believe in evolution centers around pragmatism. I don’t care if they believe in evolution or not. What is important is that the abstract tool of evolution is useful. (well to an extent, I enjoy the thrill of discovery independent of utility as much as anyone else).

You are misunderstanding philosophy, probably because you have a scientific background. They concern themselves with abstract reality independent of physical reality for the most part. Determinism to them is just an idea that meets the standards of logical consistency. I also have a scientific background. I wouldn’t call what I do philosophy because I actually take a rather dim view of the value of logic. On careful examination you may note that most discoveries are a product of cultural evolution. The simple to the complex if you like. Logic plays a rule in where to look but the actual process is observation. Compounded observations to be sure but still in some sense tied to the senses. The examples I like to use are the discovery of dark matter by two scientists working as engineers and it was the observational tools they had access to that led to the discovery. The opposite one is theoretical physics. We have spent billions of dollars on theoretical physicists that honestly haven’t produced much but a lot of logical theories.

Your point about science having nothing to do with blind faith is an unnecessary distinction. Remember science starts with causes and observes the effects. It doesn’t actually care if the effects are logical. That of course drives philosophers nuts :slight_smile: It is the not caring bit that is key. Caring injects subjectivity. Faith is about caring. The other part is that science is not actually about final solutions. It’s about accuracy and precision in observation. Faith implies final solutions. Scientists may have faith in science leading to final solutions but that is a side issue and part of cultural evolution somewhat unrelated to the scientific process.

I have to run. What you need to know is that I’m not looking for a final solution. There may be lots of inaccuracies or complications/oversimplification in my narrative. What I’m trying to do is lay out the process of cultural evolution and how it is tied to physical reality.

78

The distinction to keep clear is that “emergence” is an intellectual concept, as you say a tool. It is not “a thing in itself” in that it isn’t a physical entity, neither atomic, nor biological, or mineralogical.
It belong to the realm of the mind.

What gives you that idea. We agree. I assume you are familiar with the concept of memes?

I would strongly disagree with that conceptualization.
If anything we produce first and come up with the conceptualization later.

The Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.

It’s not a wavy gravy thing - it’s what goes on inside your body as it produces consciousness.
And that basic concept, of creature awareness in according to it suite of biological attributes transcends generations and species. It common to all life of on Earth.

To be that’s a fundamental first conceptualization required before any of the rest of it can start making realistic sense.

I don’t buy that. Our instinctual inclinations are way closer to our heart/gut, then conceptions of determinism which basically belong in academic settings away from where real life and commerce is unfolding.

Sorry I gotta peal off, it’s late.

Good night.

79

Emergent properties come along with pattern shape and/or complexity.

Suppose we have a a cube standing on a slope. It’s shape has sufficient friction to keep it in place and because it is square it cannot roll.
Now use the circumference of the cube to fashion a globe and place it on the same spot on the slope as the cube. Result is that the globe rolls down the slope

It is each shape, not the volume, that presents an emergent excellence in either pattern,
The cube remains solidly fixed to the surface of the slope, whereas the globe immediately rolls down the slope.
The cube has an emergent property of stability on a slope.
The globe has an emergent property of instability on a slope.
Each emergent property makes the object suitable for a different purpose, even as the volume and interior matter is the same.

80

You could try be more succinct. More focused.

This could also be a problem

Why theoretical physics | Perimeter Institute

Do you know the story of the Buddhist master who fills the student’s tea cup, and keeps filling it as it overflows? It’s a story of a mind that is so full of what it has read and heard and believes and has drawn conclusions, that it isn’t ready to hear any others.