The Phenomenon of Life (Hans Jonas; Philosophical Biology)

[mikeisapro]

If you want to see/experience this unfolding of evolution and feeling of advancement/complexity, try salvia divinorum!

[natedaug1]

Great vision.

[Mrtitmice]

interesting views, i had to clear the cobwebs from my mind to watch this.

[pdballiet]

2: i'm goig to make a vid response

[pdballiet]

Another lovely video, two responses

1: what credibility might we give to the proposition that supposes that the reason behind our being the farthest reaching thing in the scope of our world is because everything in our world can precisely only be something within our horizon of recognition and thus of meaning-making. If everything you can see is by definition only going to exist for you in so far as you can recognize it, and thus describe it more or less, then perhaps by def. we're the horizon..

[drknsqueen]

awesome.

[Professoranton]

@drknsqueen Thanks! Best to you

[almafarag]

This is out of context but William James writes: 'To anyone who has ever looked on the face of a dead child or parent the mere fact that matter COULD have taken for a time that precious form, ought to make matter sacred ever after. It makes no difference what the PRINCIPLE of life may be, material or immaterial, matter at any rate co-operates, lends itself to all life’s purposes. That beloved incarnation was among matter’s possibilities.'

[pangeaprogress]

It is a "strange world" as Einstein put it. That strangeness can drive us to ask more questions and seek more answers about this world. Pursuing truth is beauty even if that truth at first is horrific.

[wtmeighan]

Sounds like Beatrice Bruteau, who tries to connect the sacred to the material.She also has an emphasis that Humans have the choice to become,conscious of the unfolding direction of the universe itself. I must read the book: Thank you! I wish I could become more aware and responsible at the same time. Cheers Professor!

[fractal420]

Alligators worry about what's for lunch; humans worry about giant meteors crashing into Earth.

[soulfetcher]

Great video Corey!

Yes, matter seems 'pregnant' with groping-toward-complexity. Jonas said in an interview "My own conjecture is that everywhere within the depths of matter there is a kind of waiting for the opportunity to also unfold the potentiality for life. The opportunity is very rare, but wherever it opens itself up, matter, as it were, will shoot into this opening and go the way of life."

[soulfetcher]

This reminds me of Maturana's talk of "stickiness" of living systems – by which greater levels of complexity might emerge. He later abandoned academic caution and called it love.

It’s reminiscent of Hesiod (600BCE) who called Eros a primal cosmic principle (the first to arise out of chaos) & before man & gods.

All this suggests that altruism in more complex living systems is a fundamental attribute rather than an epiphenomenon of its survival.

Maybe its apparent teleology is an “as-if-ness”

[Professoranton]

@soulfetcher Many Thanks Graham.

[zarkoff45]

I don't think we are as free as you seem to think.

[tyrbolo]

Eschew Obfuscation.

[niza310]

Memetics.

[stefanlittle]

Thinking of the tree of life as a linear hierarchy with man at the pinnacle is quite problematic. Also, dividing life into vegetative vs motile/animal is also very problematic, and arbitrary. I like the idea of viewing ourselves as not metaphysically isloated is helpful, via bioogical understanding, but Jonas should benefit from a more modern and refined understanding of biology.

[stefanlittle]

@stefanlittle

maybe I should start a new field, eh? "bioology". ;)

[jogayot]

inwardly-outwardness permeates all scales of universe. as much as i disagree with determinists, concentrating merely on plant-animal-human semantic transition clouds the issue. it enables the misunderstanding of human agency with "god's" intellect as pictured in the creationist-atheist debate.

the ever growing opening is already present in fields of forces, elementary particles, atomic elements and chemical structures. as you said the directed tension of freedom has to be embraced all the way.

[thepathlesspath]

It's interesting to take the perspective that, as we move from a linear to an organic/chaotic mathematics, we begin to take biology more seriously. Rather than just a kind of "Philosophical Physicalism" rooted in, well, physics, we now may have the emergence of a philosophy of biology. A shift in understanding and a new horizon for our minds to explore. Teilhard, Jonas and others may be the formative texts of some yet-to-blossom future civilization.

[thepathlesspath]

Ah, this was great... thanks for this... will pick up Jonas. Forgot about this book entirely, but I've been meaning to read it. :)

[AdderallApocalypse]

*shrug*... evolution is copying errors that survive to copy themselves... any increase in complexity is possible because of the massive amounts of energy radiating from the sun... if an increase in complexity helps an organism survive better than its competitors, that will result in an increase in complexity in general... "purpose" did not exist until there was consciousness... what does "freedom" have to do with this stuff... maybe what you call "freedom" can be further deconstructed?

[Elenkhos]

This is one reason why I have dissputed that evolution is mindless. There is no reason for it, other than the development of intellect. People espouse that evolutions driving force is survival but why? If it's mindless forces, then It could have stopped long ago at the stage of bacterium. Bacteria survive in just about every condition on the planet and do well. You can't say that evolutions driving forces is survival, and then take the intellect out of it.

[Professoranton]

@Elenkhos Thanks. I agree. If continuance were the issue, life would not have emerged and if survival were the issue why higher mammals?

[0utgoingMessages]

@Professoranton In a universe as big as ours, how could the building blocks life not come together? It only had to happen once. And the reason life became more complex than bacteria is because there are niches to be filled for the bigger and more complex organisms. Big fish eat the little fish. Smart fish eat the dumb fish.

[kileer71]

@Professoranton So posit a theory, other than survival suited for diverse environments, to explain the function and capability of mammalian intelligence.

[stefanlittle]

@Professoranton

@Elenkhos

Giving a goal to evolutionary change over time in the way you state here is completely bizarre.

[stefanlittle]

@Professoranton

Have you actually discussed this kind of thinking with an evolutionary biologist? I am happy to talk to you about some of this. I don't make vids (perhaps I should, but I don't have tenure... ;). However, I am a interested in these ideas, even though I disagree with some of them. I am an evolutionary biologist. ;)

[RaWBLooD]

@Professoranton

To answer both, since its mindless continuance and survival aren't the issues, they are facts of life. The life that did not survive can't be seen today, except for our recreations of it from remnants like fossils, but there were times when there was life that might be disadvantaged today reigning supreme.

[RaWBLooD]

@Professoranton

There are studies of bacteria being bred over generations, and while the later generations are supreme to a few of their predecessors, often times they are very disadvantaged against the starting colonies.

It just so happens that on a large environment like earth, over time complex beings had the upper hand to less complex ones, either by hunting the less complex ones or by being able to adapt to temperature and atmospheric changes better.

[RaWBLooD]

@Professoranton

If the earth suddenly cooled or heated, or light became scarce, there are many types of insects and bacteria that would thrive and consume the dying remnants of the life that could not adapt, some of that life could be humans.

[rahulk552008]

@Professoranton Evolution doesn't really have a single purpose like "ensuring survival" or any of that. The way I understand it is that random mutations happen among individuals in species. Most of these mutations are generally just errors in the replication of DNA, so they negatively affect the survival rate of the individual. Some of them though, offer advantages in the environment and thus help propagate the genes of that individual. Overtime, the mutations perfect themselves.

[AdderallApocalypse]

@Elenkhos ha! my last video addressed that very premise...

/watch?v=IJ_xEQ23wRM

[wimsweden]

@Elenkhos

You could just as easily turn that around. If when you argue that evolution is about the development of intellect, why are there still bacteria around?

Profound misunderstanding of evolution I think.

[Elenkhos]

@wimsweden I think you are profoundly rude, and that my understanding of evolution is spot on.

[stefanlittle]

@Elenkhos

I suspect from what you have written here that you have some problems; I know professors of biology who have worse prolems understanding it. So, don't feel too bad.

In any case. The existence of something does not have to mean that it was inevitable or that it is the reason for the process that resulted in it's arrival. For example: Do grapes grow for the purpose of us drinking wine? Do fungi make antibiotics so that you ca get over your throat infection?

[Elenkhos]

@stefanlittle Do not be tripe. I fully understand how evolution works, I think it may be you who is not subtle enough to understand the context of the discussion.

[stefanlittle]

@Elenkhos

Well that is a discussion stopper if I have ever read one. Yes, I'll just stay out of your "big boy" ideas and talk then. sigh

[Elenkhos]

@stefanlittle You're welcome to say what you like, you're a big boy, put on your big boy pants.

[wimsweden]

@Elenkhos

Okay. If you feel I'm rude, I won't engage you anymore. Thank you for responding nonetheless. :)

[hammer1b]

@Elenkhos

I'm not sure evolution has a "driving force." It is random in the sense that whatever best suits the organism's survival will be passed on through genetics. The development of the intellect is very likely given enough time; but this is just because knowing things about your environment is a huge advantage in the game of survival. It seems a stretch to point to this as some sort of goal or end or evolution. Evolution has no goal.

[kittygirl792]

@Elenkhos @Elenkhos Why would you think there's a "why" in nature when a "how" is enough to explain everyting. In order for a set of forces to work toward a specific goal they must be consious (or something consious must have set them in motion). we can't think like this because creating a theoretical comples being to explain complexity doesn't get the job done! (that's why it fails as an argument got god)

Why can't we just agree that complexity in the universe is meaningless, and inject our own

[Elenkhos]

The Universe is intelligent because you are intelligent, this is pure deductive logic.Intellect is 'good' because it can reflect on what is 'good' or more desirable.As to why the Universe would want to be intelligent: Why would molecules want to replicate? Why would simple molecule replication lead to a sentient self reflective bing that desires survival?Also,what about Hawking's projected Universe?They very seriously believe our Universe is projected from an other dimension,what does this?

[kittygirl792]

@Elenkhos meaning into it like we were going to do regardless of if we knew the "right" answer about the "objective meaning" of it all.

Plus, why is intelligence good? I understand we might enjoy it now that we're alive, but why would the universe "want" to be intelligent?