Q: How will all these speculations about nature of knowledge help with the ‘problem of life’?
A: Let us come back to the problem of life. There are two sub problems involved as discussed earlier. Explaining the mechanism of life is a scientific problem and it is fairly well understood. Life’s meaning and purpose is the other part and it is excluded from scientific discussions.
Q: And you insist ‘meaning and purpose’ also is a scientific problem because science is the only path to reliable knowledge?
A: Science should point towards a solution to life’s meaning and purpose questions.
Q: How is that possible? Science is value free and cannot point towards anything other than brute facts.
A: Where else do we turn for answers? I don’t agree science can offer no help. First of all we should realize biology is truly unique among the branches of modern science.
Q: Why do you think biology is special? Why can’t scientists study life as they study other natural phenomena?
A: Science of life is unique because the knower is attempting to study its own mechanism and history. The boundary between observer and observed becomes a minefield of ambiguities.
Q: I don’t understand. Are you suggesting facts of biology are ‘ambiguous’?
A: Facts of biology are important as parts of a complete solution to the problem of life. Objective facts of life sciences should be integrated to form a logical and meaningful understanding of life as it is actually lived. We have miserably failed in this task.
Science explains the mechanism of life but phenomenal consciousness has no place in this explanation. The ambiguity of life studying itself is swept under the carpet because no one knows how to deal with it.
Q: And you insist science is the only path to reliable knowledge about problems of any kind, including meaning and purpose?
A: Yes. Problems can be solved only by following a rational approach.
Q: Then what is your objection? Isn’t science the most rational approach to understand life?
A: ‘Life’ is observed and measured as in any other scientific investigation. Living things appear as survival machines to scientific objectivity. Infinitely more complex than any machine existing today but machines nevertheless. Biologist generalizes she too must be a machine because other living things are machines. This is absurd.
Q: Why?
A: A better starting point to investigate life should be our own being. The closest we know about life is through our own conscious experience.
Q: Existential biology? I believe ordinary biology is doing well enough. You are simply refusing to acknowledge the great success of science of life.
A: Darwin’s theory states life evolved through natural selection of favourable variations. There is competition for limited resources and ‘fitter’ variants survive to reproduce. This process, over millions of years, has produced the variety of life we see around today. Random mutations in the genetic code makes some offspring more adapted to changing environment. Such ‘fitter’ members win the race for survival. This is an immensely powerful explanation, but almost certainly wrong.
Q: What do you mean? How can it be wrong if it is a powerful explanation?
A: Think about the struggle for survival. Of course organisms struggle to stay alive. But is there a reason why they struggle?
Q: Today’s organisms evolved over millions of years of ‘staying around’ of ancestral organisms, generation after generation. The longer an organism stays around and generate copies of itself (offspring), the more successful it is at the game of survival. You can look for a reason, but it is irrelevant. What really matters is the form remaining stable, reproducing, and giving way to next generation to continue the cycle.
A: It appears so when the scientist study evolution. I have two objections. First of all, how will it appear to a detached observer if consciousness is the driving force of evolution?
Q: How can consciousness interact with genetic material? You are talking nonsense.
A: It is not inconceivable. Perhaps we don’t yet know the true nature of matter. How could the brain, a lump of fairly well understood matter, generate subjective experiences? How could inert matter feel like something?
Q: You believe consciousness is the driving force for evolution?
A: Let us not jump to conclusions. Ignore the challenging question of how consciousness interacts with genetic material for time being. How will it appear to the objective eye if consciousness is the driving force?
Q: The subjective drive itself will not be visible to the scientist. There will be no detectable causal mechanism but the result (evolution) will be measurable.
A: Exactly. That is Darwin’s theory re-phrased. Evolution caused by random genetic changes and differential survival. The result is there for everyone to see in the fossil records. Evolution did happen!
Q: You are saying ‘consciousness driven evolution’, studied objectively, would look exactly like Darwin’s theory?
A: Yes. Of course, that doesn’t mean consciousness is driving evolution. We do not have all the answers. Weeding out of ‘unfit’ variants did play a role in evolution but it was most likely a minor factor.
Q: That is hard for me to accept, but you seem to have a point. If ‘consciousness’ has a role in evolution it would be invisible to science. Science of evolution would look exactly as Darwin’s theory.
A: Let us move on. I have a more serious objection to the theory of natural selection. That is about the idea of ‘struggle for survival’.
Q: Don’t we see struggle for survival at every level of the biosphere?
A: Indeed organisms struggle to continue living. But is it mere struggle for survival? Is there anything more than mere survival behind life’s struggles? Is survival the goal of life?
Q: You are again bringing in natural teleology. That is not science.
A: If we really need anything like ‘goal’ to explain how nature works, so be it. We are still firmly grounded and not talking about supernatural entities. Is science good enough to explain life? You might say it does a fine job except for consciousness. I am suggesting phenomenal consciousness must be fundamental to any theory of life.
Scientific ideas strongly influence how societies function. I think it is a big mistake to declare ‘self-interest to survive’ alone is foundational to all human behaviour.
Q: What is the driving force of human behaviour if not self-interest to survive?
A: It is Experience. We struggle to survive because it opens the possibility of experiential continuity. Physical survival is important because it is the pre-condition for generating new experiences. Survival in itself, without the possibility of experiential continuity, has no value.
Q: Science explains consciousness or ‘experiential continuity’ as derived from physical continuity. You are saying it should be the other way?
A: Yes. Experience is more fundamental. ‘Struggle for survival’ is actually the ‘Struggle to Continue Experiencing’ as seen from third person point of view. The way organisms behave should be re-assessed with ‘experience value’ rather than ‘survival value’.
Q: Experience is first person/subjective. How can consciousness be incorporated into the science of life?
A: Science of life will remain what it is, with the caveat ‘LIFE is more than it’s science’. That would put an end to biologists and philosophers of science proposing sweeping generalizations such as ‘selfish gene’ and ‘natural selection as the only possible explanation for life’. Understanding the fundamental nature of consciousness will lead us to a new meta-science of life.
Q: It appears to me an extremely weak argument. How do you convince the life scientist or even a person of average intelligence?
A: There is no way to convince anyone natural selection is not an adequate explanation for life. Anything and everything about life can be ‘explained’ using natural selection. But what exactly are we explaining without consciousness in the picture?
Q: Why do you suggest the vast explanatory power of natural selection isn’t actually explaining anything?
A: Because it is a re-statement of observed facts without any causal mechanism. There is variation among offspring and some fail to survive into adulthood. These are observed facts. What causes the variation? There isn’t any causal mechanism however hard the scientist look. It appears completely random, driven by chance events! ‘Evolution by natural selection’ is another way of saying ‘we-have-no-clue-how-it-works’!
Q: Do you agree evolution happened and there is no mysterious force driving evolutionary change?
A: I fully agree, but our failure to detect an objective causal mechanism doesn’t imply the process is either random or driven by a mysterious designer. The best possible answer is ‘we don’t know yet’. Packaging our ignorance to look like a scientific theory is bad strategy.
Q: Natural selection is powerful enough to explain many instances of evolutionary changes seen in nature- for example, evolution of peppered moths in many European countries during industrialisation in 18th/19thcenturies.
A: Moths changed color to match the environment polluted by rapid industrialization. How did it happen? No one asked the moths, so we cannot entirely trust the scientist observing moths from a distance!
Q: Seriously! You are suggesting we should ask moths for an answer?
A: I mean we could be wrong as long as we ignore the organism’s subjectivity. Indeed it is not practical to ask the moth, but we could begin with humans. We could ask ourselves what drives changes in our behaviour or how we adapt to changing environment. The answers appear to be much more complicated when we ask such questions. An entirely new term, ‘cultural evolution’ enters the fray. How do we know moths do not have an equivalent of culture, which only other moths can sense?
Q: That is an interesting way to look at moths! But isn’t the so called ‘cultural evolution’ too fundamentally driven by natural selection?
A: Human social evolution has very little to do with natural selection. Many trends in the evolution of human societies contradict natural selection. For example, declining birth rates in richer countries. Individuals with more resources should reproduce more according to Darwinism. But the exact opposite happens in human societies. The rich have fewer children and the poor tend to have more children. Why is natural selection not applicable to the growth of human population?
Q: Isn’t that due to the rich having other priorities, for example career advancement?
A: Why is our own choices powerful enough to override natural selection? How did we acquire the ability to make choices if not through natural selection?
Q: Whatever abilities/functions we have evolved through natural selection, including our ability to make choices.
A: That would imply we are the case of natural selection working against itself! It is a pathetically inadequate explanation for life. I will go there only after exhausting all other possibilities.
Q: What is your explanation for declining birth rate in affluent societies?
A: The contradiction disappears if we understand the reason why organisms struggle to survive is to generate more ‘experience’. Physical survival is only a means to achieve this goal.
Economically backward societies in general suffer from lower life expectancy and fewer choices to generate novel experiences. In addition, traditional societies tend to have a stronger parent-child connection, in the sense of parents seeing children as a continuation of themselves. Thus having more children is a way to maximize experience, though vicariously, from the parent’s point of view.
Affluent societies face a different challenge. Life expectancies are higher and individuals have a rich variety of possible ‘experiences’ to choose from. For example, many choose not to waste resources to have children, instead spend time and money on other things such as leisure travel to foreign lands. After all, why choose vicarious experience through children if I can do it first hand?
Q: I am sure evolutionary biologists will better their explanation in future.
A: Natural selection is an extremely powerful tool for those who can swallow it. Evolutionary biologists will possibly add few more epicycles and manufacture another explanation. But we have to look at all the facts and decide – why not choose the simplest theory that can explain life in the most meaningful way?
Q: Suggesting consciousness as the driving force of evolution is not going to be very helpful, I suspect!
A: I am not suggesting consciousness is the driving force of evolution. My point is we do not know enough about ‘matter’ to decide how life evolved. More specifically, there is a limit to how much we can know objectively. Natural selection appears to be the best possible objective explanation for evolution, yet it could be wrong, in the sense this not how life actually evolved.
Q: What are your thoughts on the mechanism of evolution?
A: If we look for a mechanism to explain evolution we will end up with a theory like natural selection. Phenomenal consciousness is left out by the rules of scientific investigation. I am suggesting no mechanism can explain evolution of life because phenomenal consciousness has to be an integral part of the story. A true theory of life should include consciousness as it really is.
Q: Phenomenal consciousness is subjective by definition. It is impossible to do science with subjectivity.
A: That should be seen as part of the solution rather than a limitation. We should ask ‘how come it is impossible to study a fundamental fact about life using the tried and tested method of science?’ Does this inability to deal with phenomenal consciousness point to certain error in the way we define knowledge? Focus of enquiry should move away from ‘what is consciousness?’ to ‘what does it mean to know objectively?’.
Q: Does that mean science of life has got it all wrong?
A: Science of life is both right and wrong. Evolution through natural selection is the best possible objective explanation for life. However, the real question is whether life can be explained in objective terms.
Q: What do you mean by accepting natural selection as the best possible objective explanation for life but at the same time claiming it doesn’t explain life?
A: Natural selection would have been an acceptable answer if consciousness was a product of material processes. As seen in our discussion on ‘knowledge’, consciousness is much more fundamental. ‘Objects’ of science are creations of the ‘knower’ and ‘knower’ has deep roots going all the way down into purely subjective state of existence. The superstructure of objective knowledge would have no basis if we eliminate its subjective foundation.
Q: Are you trying to bring back the supernatural as an explanatory mechanism?
A: No. There can be an entirely natural explanation, one which incorporates the fundamental unknowability in nature. We will explore such an explanation in the next section.
Mind, Evolution and Meaning 
Very interesting indeed! You make a very novel point about ‘experience’ being a fundamental driving force and physical survival being relevant only as a requirement for it, which to me is exciting!
Perhaps if we go back to the earliest stages, where chemical aggregates started to convert to replicating particles, progressively evolving into “life” as more complex cells and organelles- what could be an ‘experience’ of subjectivity at this earliest level, for such a drive to propagate forward? Assuming what you propose to be true, this drive from the consciousness itself, must have pushed the parallel evolution of ‘experience’ along with the physical (at chemical and biological) levels.
Natural variation arising from recombination, mutation etc. causing changes in the gene pool for selective pressure to work on and survival of the fittest would only be evolving as a primary condition, for more and more complex ‘experience’ to be possible.
The increasing evolution of ‘complexity’ (of experience through biology) by itself, would then appear to be propelling the whole process forward!
As of now, on this planet, we are at the peak of this ‘complexity’ (with an open end in future). We are now asking questions to understand our own mechanism, complexity and experience. We are trying to objectively (and subjectively) understand our own subjectivity. Could this then be the ‘driving goal’ of the ‘experience’ driven biological evolution, pushed by consciousness?
Is the ‘consciousness/reality’ pushing evolution of the manifested life to such a degree (through a parallel evolution of ‘experience’ through the medium of the ‘biological’), to a point- where it can ‘itself’ be discovered at the end point? This end point then, can only come for an individual, because biological evolution works on individuals (although its effects extending to collective as a species). Hence, each individual human is ‘subjectively’ exploring his or her ‘subjectivity’ as this peak of ‘experience’ which drove our evolution!
About the relationship between the ‘subjectivity’ that is trying to study and gain the ‘objective’ understanding of life, I think, as approached by science, our own ‘subjectivity’ may forever remain beyond our scope (unless its reality is actually arising from the physical), which I do not assume at the moment. But maybe we can get to it through a ‘subjective’ experience of our ‘subjectivity’ itself.
As you also suggest and I agree, the objective facts of all biological observations would appear to be the same (in agreement with the Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection), irrespective of whether it is fundamentally driven by consciousness, or not.
Scientifically, we can agree on the fundamentals of physics, chemistry and biology, to naturally explain the assembly of the primitive life forms in water. From this point on, almost everything observed or predicted, makes good sense as explained by natural selection. Based on this, the detailed mechanisms of biological systems starting from the basic chemical ingredients, are explained in convincing details, by the current theories of molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry etc. at molecular, cellular, biochemical and physiological levels, as you say, and I agree “Evolution did happen”.
We may not have a direct access to the ‘subjective’ experience of other species- but, by a scientific approach of studying and analysing their behaviour (objectively) in context of their specific environments- a lot has already been convincingly explained and understood, in terms of the biological, ecological and behavioural evolution of living organisms. But it may not all be as simple as a struggle for survival alone, when we incorporate phenomenon like mate choice, sexual selection and altruism etc. all observed and thoroughly studied for several species, as different aspects of evolutionary biology- it presents a very complex picture indeed, but most of it still makes very good sense in terms of the currently accepted mechanisms of evolution of life, as proposed through the natural selection (a view I share with you).
By extension, although much more complex than other species that we have studied, research on human biology has also never been found to contradict any fundamental principles of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Through recent advancements in technology and medical science, Humans currently are affecting their own evolution (and perhaps that of many other species) on this planet, in a way no single species has ever done before. There is some degree of obvious “interference” evident here, and should be taken into account, when we study ‘modern’ human evolution in Darwinian terms.
So, it is likely, that once we take into account the fast pace of intellectual and technological development of humans as a species with its complex human civilization- the complicated impacts of various social, cultural, physiological, psychological and behavioural aspects- for example, with rapid changes in the traditional gender roles in modern societies- these possibly have more to do with the declining birth rates in affluent societies, rather than a ‘need’ to experience, as a fundamental driving force of biological evolution?
All very interesting possibilities to think about! This post of yours seems to add more facets to the mystery of reality and I really like that 🙂
Thank you. This tentative link between ‘experience’ and evolution opens up intriguing possibilities to understand ourselves and our connection with rest of nature in new ways. Surely there are some loose ends and more questions!
As a biologist, I am excited to see your approach of trying to connect consciousness, and ‘experience’ as some version of the eventual ‘meaning and purpose’- with the scientific facts of biology- an attempt to bridge that realm of the unknowable with the known!
But the premise that science is the only path to reliable knowledge about problems of any kind, including meaning and purpose, is something I am not sure about.
While I completely agree that a rational approach of science is absolutely essential to understand almost everything in our world- but there is ‘something’ remaining, that one last thing, which I am convinced is beyond the grip of any systematic, logical deduction- except as a concept, because that is the language of science(but it fails to capture the true meaning). Precisely for this reason, that meaning and purpose as an ‘experience’, cannot be captured in its essence, by any kind of scientific analysis.
Until we arrive at those limits…the boundaries where scientific analysis, rationality, and ‘thinking’ stop and we enter a realm of paradox, we only have science to depend on- with its reliable, time tested, verifiable and robust approach. Beyond those limits, I really do not know how to proceed, but I am inclined to placing trust in our own ‘subjective experience’ and following its lead.
I agree with your assessment here Ramble. Science deals with empirical evidence or a posteriori knowledge, which for all practical purpose is an “after the fact” approach. The scientific method is not designed to address a priori knowledge other than its usage of math; a math which for all practical purposes is a priori knowledge. A posteriori knowledge is an indicator that is dependent upon inferences that are drawn from the empirical evidence. An indicator is just that, an indicator, not a fact of the matter.
A fact of the matter is determined by how empirical evidence corresponds to the true “nature” of reality. So in order to make incremental progress in our understanding of the natural world, it becomes imperative to understand the”nature” of that fundamental reality.
Since the scientific method is a posteriori, a more progressive or leading edge approach is required. I would call this progressive approach the synthetic scientific method. This method would essentially be synthetic a priori judgements followed by rigorous synthetic a priori analysis.
What this means is that whatever hypothesis is proposed as a condition on a possibility, that possibility must square up with what we can observe, measure, test and/or directly experience in our universe of Appearances.
I agree with what you say here. Science is excellent as an “after the fact” approach.
“whatever hypothesis is proposed as a condition on a possibility, that possibility must square up with what we can observe, measure, test and/or directly experience in our universe of Appearances.” Absolutely.
That is why I find Shajan’s approach quite interesting, because without dissecting the mechanism of how it started (leaving it alone for the time being), if the observations from the the whole of our current scientific understanding of biological evolution of life (all the way from its primitive forms to the current complexity of humans), can be explained with his proposed approach of “experience” being the principle determinant, this offers an exciting possibility. If this is true, then I can see our quest for ‘meaning and purpose’ sort of hovering as an invisible but strong presence, over the whole train of biological evolution, while it moves along! Science can see the train but the invisible trail of this driving force right parallel can only be ‘indirectly’ predicted and pointed towards, by what is observed.
But again, this will always remain an inference only, will never be proved beyond doubt, unless the origin of that ‘subjectivity and experience’ in manifested life and the consciousness itself pushing this whole train forward from the beginning- is the part which science can prove. I think, science will struggle to establish that beyond any doubts.
I have added my comment below.
Indeed, science will struggle simply because the scientific method is a posteriori. As an analogy, I see the a posteriori scientific method as the blade of the knife, which by itself is an efficient tool nevertheless a blunt instrument. Whereas the synthetic scientific method which posits “conditions on a possibility” is the leading edge of that same instrument.
A shining example of this blunt instrument approach is best expressed with Einsteins General Theory of Relativity with its fabric of space/time. The entire premise is based upon what we know about a fabric and what happens when we place an object on that fabric; it will concave. GR is quite ingenious and very useful in making predictions however, it in no way reflects the true nature of reality.
But again, for those individuals who’ve made the “initial cut” by dividing reality into parts, there is only a posteriori knowledge, knowledge from which analogies of the things we do understand are used to explain the things we “do not” understand. Our primary experience which relies exclusively upon a posteriori knowledge is a closed loop system, it is anything but “dynamic”.
“Explaining the mechanism of life is a scientific problem and it is fairly well understood.”
Correct….. However, the ontological assertion that inorganic materials do not qualify for life is arbitrary and cannot be justified. This rationale is a derivative and extension of our original metaphysical premise which is to divide our world into parts.
“Life’s meaning and purpose is the other part and it is excluded from scientific discussions.”
Again, this may indeed be the case but, excluding the natural world from an all inclusive definition of life will only reduce to a theory that is heavily ladened in anthropocentric ideas.
I will agree with you. The transitions organic matter –> life –> consciousness –> meta-cognition could be seen as great ‘threshold crossings’ in evolution. That leads to interesting questions about the nature of ‘fundamental substance’.
Is there are a website or blog to find out more about your thought process?
Try this link: https://logosconcarne.com/2023/11/24/friday-leftovers/#comments.
A gentleman who calls himself Wyrd owns the site. The discourse between him and myself is towards the end of the comments. The conversation is productive and it should give you some insights into my thought processes.
Thank you. I will come back later.
This is a comment I posted on Rambles blog and it should give you some further insights.
When I decided to join the fray of the wild, wild west of consciousness theories a few years back, I also started from the premise of “universal consciousness”. In theory, I could make it work with a slew of hand-waving arguments. I also realized that this premise irrevocably reduced to some form of panpsychism.
Initially, I didn’t see panpsychism as a problem because I came up with a solid argument to overcome the so-called “combination problem”. But the biggest hurdle to overcome was how panpsychism contributed to or enhanced what we know about physics.
Physics is the science of motion. But as a science, physics does not address the cause of motion other than the lame hypothesis of a big bang. The gaping hole in the science of physics is the hard problem of motion or what I refer to as “first cause”. I wanted a model that could not only account for motion in our material universe as understood by physics, but I also wanted a single theory that could also account for the initial cause of motion. And as a pragmatic approach to materialism, I wanted a model that could account for the novelty, diversity and complexity we observe.
The question about the nature of the fundamental substance is a challenge because at the end of the day we want to know what that nature is. Even though the ontological primitive may be forever unknown, it is knowable. We can know its nature. And it is this nature that will unlock the mysteries we observe and subsequently describe with our scientific models. Furthermore, none, and I mean nove of our current scientific models express the true nature of that fundamental substance.
I’m pragmatic physicalist, which means that for all practical purposes we live in a material/physical universe therefore, a material universe is what we have to work with. And any incremental progress made towards understanding of that universe is contingent upon solving the “hard-problem of matter” first. In other words; we have to understand what matter is in and of itself.
This is not just a metaphysical or philosophical question, it’s a scientific question as well.
Good luck……
Sorry, it took a while for me to come back. It is interesting you mention missing first cause as the hard problem of motion, and believe (if I understand correctly) it will be eventually resolved by a grand unifying theory. I agree the missing first cause is a problem to understand motion. I will go further and characterize all scientific knowledge as ‘shallow but reliable’. This shallowness is related to our inability to produce a physicalist explanation for mind/consciousness. We do not know the mechanism of knowledge acquisition (why is a lump of brain matter able to discover beautiful pattens in the universe?) and the first hurdle in my view is to produce a physicalist model for ‘objective knowing’.
But scientific knowledge is useful for practical purposes. We must begin with ‘shallow but reliable’ knowledge to solve the mystery of the missing minds. Knowing involves minds but there is no way to pinpoint ‘mind’ if we follow the physicalist path. The fact that we are able to generate knowledge implies mind has to be real but what exactly is mind?
The problem could be simplified by stripping down mind to its bare minimum, the objective knowing function or ‘knower’, and studying its origin and developmental history in human evolution. I believe this is a very important first step, and best approach to solve the mystery of missing minds. This line of enquiry will eventually lead to ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ as knower’s interpretations of unknowable fundamental substance.
It appears our views have many similarities. I will continue posting in coming weeks.
Thank you.
Let me use an analogy to clarify my thinking on the ‘knowable’ and ‘limits of scientific knowledge’. Suppose you want to learn swimming. The swimming pool is shallow at one end and deep at the other side. Beginners need to spend several days at the shallow end, getting used to water and feeling the safety of firm surface under their feet before moving onto the deeper end.
Human race may be thought of as in the early stages of this learning journey. Firm support under our feet is extremely valuable and important. We are genuinely puzzled how can there be ‘knowlege’ without measurement and objective validation. Floating in water without support may appear as a minor miracle at the beginning.
Staying put at the shallow end with the comfort of reliable firm ground will never lead us to experience the joy of weightlessness at the deep end. At the same time, going there too soon may not be wise as well, as it might limit our ability to solve problems of survival.
I think science, or more correctly natural philosophy, should eventually establish the limits of the knowable, and find a way to ‘prove’ beyond doubt measurable is only a subset of reality. Science should lead us to the threshold of a ‘higher’ knowledge and I believe science is the only path leading there. We should begin with ‘shallow knowledge’ and progress to ‘deep experience’.
It is also interesting to consider life began in water, hundreds of million years ago, crawling up to dry land seeking more freedom and novel experiences, yet making frequent trips to their water holes to revitalise. Humans may be the only species that got stuck on dry land, bewitched by the possibilities of a new kind of freedom. We too need to make occasional trips to the deeper end to reconnect with our experiential past for long term survival.
I like your analogy, about starting to learn swimming at the shallow end.
I see what you mean and I agree that we need to go with the scientific approach, as long as it takes us. We can trust that When it hits a wall, it will at least try to break those walls, with all its tried and tested ways, standing upon the shoulders of the immense knowledge and understanding acquired so far.
I also see that there may always be a few individuals, who perhaps have already jumped in the deep end, spontaneously learning or knowing how to swim, from where they have tried to tell us, ” we can all swim and float, we are not really going to drown” but we do not trust them, until it is our own experience.
We can only hope that as a ‘collective’, human species will someday discover its full potential, and swim effortlessly in the deep end….with or without going through a long struggle of the learning process.
Your analogy does make sense 🙂
Interesting post and an interesting series of comments. Well done.
The post and the comments focus on experience as a driver in the evolution of life. But I was caught by the following in your response to First Cause:
“That leads to interesting questions about the nature of ‘fundamental substance’.”
Have you considered that your theory of experience as the driver of evolution may apply more broadly than just to the evolution of life?
There is an interpretation of fundamental reality which suggests that the creation of “experience” may be a driving factor in the evolution of the entire physical universe. There is a fundamental process of quantum evolution which generates unique events from an array of weighted amplitudes transformed into probabilities. Quantum reduction creates the macroscopic world through what I would describe as a probabilistic process of becoming. Not all physicists believe quantum reduction is real, and some try to explain it away or reject the role of probability in quantum evolution. But the math of quantum mechanics describes the process distinctly and relies on it to create accurate predictions based on probabilities. So if quantum reduction is real, and if the universe does evolve through this process of probabilistic indeterminacy, we have to ask why. What is the function of this process in the engineering of the universe?
It is conceivable that the universe could have remained a nebulous soup of quantum fields forever. But instead the universe initiated a process that generates unique experiences from quantum possibilities. And the universe itself does not know what those experiences will be in advance. If quantum reduction occurs, and if it proceeds according to the probabilistic process defined in quantum mechanics, then the universe is in a constant state of creating itself and its own future through this probabilistic process of becoming.
Your theory of experience as the driver of evolution for “life” may have far broader implications for the evolution of the entire physical universe.
More of my 2 cents.
Thanks for reading. Evolution of life and evolution of the entire universe are very likely linked. The ‘fundamental substance’ could be metaphorically described as mind-matter complex in continuous evolution, animated by its own creativity. Patterns and regularity in the universe are expressions this creativity. Insights from quantum mechanics might eventually help to make such a theory mainstream. I tried to explore ‘creative evolution’ in this post.