Identity/Creativity: Necessary Intermediate Stage

[Etritonakin]

From the human perspective, we see that "nature" will follow its present course based on its present arrangement and characteristics of its present components -which are themselves based on smaller components with specific characteristics -UNTIL the development of true conscious decision coupled with mechanisms necessary to alter the otherwise-inevitable course of nature.

Only then could certain things become possible -which would themselves be indicative of an identity and creativity.

As human (and previous) identity and creativity are believed by some to be purely natural developments, it would stand to reason that they were inevitable developments which required no conscious decision.

However, our identity and creativity developed/were developed within an already-extremely-complex environment -and we had absolutely nothing to do with the process of creating that environment or ourselves. Furthermore, by the time we have any decision-making power or personal identity, we ourselves are already extremely complex and capable -essentially mass-produced before our personal identity is initiated -after which we learn to use our bodies and minds.

As that which presently exists is an arrangement of that which existed before, it stands to reason that what is true from our perspective is true of the whole -an all-inclusive perspective -and that between the most simple state possible and the present, similar developments in similar order were necessary to alter the otherwise inevitable course of nature to that which is extremely and purposefully complex.

In other words, it would be perfectly "natural" -even necessary -for "everything" to have naturally developed an original identity and creativity in order to bring the universe and ourselves into being from initial simplicity.

An original, however, would necessarily be involved as increasingly able in becoming more complex and able -not able to decide to exist or develop, but increasingly responsible for every possible decision which required identity and creativity -certain things becoming possible only after becoming able to realize "I AM".

 

[sayak83]

From the human perspective, we see that "nature" will follow its present course based on its present arrangement and characteristics of its present components -which are themselves based on smaller components with specific characteristics -UNTIL the development of true conscious decision coupled with mechanisms necessary to alter the otherwise-inevitable course of nature.

Only then could certain things become possible -which would themselves be indicative of an identity and creativity.

As human (and previous) identity and creativity are believed by some to be purely natural developments, it would stand to reason that they were inevitable developments which required no conscious decision.

However, our identity and creativity developed/were developed within an already-extremely-complex environment -and we had absolutely nothing to do with the process of creating that environment or ourselves. Furthermore, by the time we have any decision-making power or personal identity, we ourselves are already extremely complex and capable -essentially mass-produced before our personal identity is initiated -after which we learn to use our bodies and minds.

As that which presently exists is an arrangement of that which existed before, it stands to reason that what is true from our perspective is true of the whole -an all-inclusive perspective -and that between the most simple state possible and the present, similar developments in similar order were necessary to alter the otherwise inevitable course of nature to that which is extremely and purposefully complex.

In other words, it would be perfectly "natural" -even necessary -for "everything" to have naturally developed an original identity and creativity in order to bring the universe and ourselves into being from initial simplicity.

An original, however, would necessarily be involved as increasingly able in becoming more complex and able -not able to decide to exist or develop, but increasingly responsible for every possible decision which required identity and creativity -certain things becoming possible only after becoming able to realize "I AM".

No.

 

[bobhikes]

Some Identity and creativity that is not Human.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/Spider_web_with_dew_drops03.jpg

http://featuredcreature.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/tumblr_m3yzhabaae1r4t9h1o2_1280-819x1024.jpg

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/13/ad/eb/13adebb82ec82f093619125bc6862780.jpg

 

[Etritonakin]

No.

lol -good talk

 

[Etritonakin]

Some Identity and creativity that is not Human.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/Spider_web_with_dew_drops03.jpg

http://featuredcreature.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/tumblr_m3yzhabaae1r4t9h1o2_1280-819x1024.jpg

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/13/ad/eb/13adebb82ec82f093619125bc6862780.jpg

Not sure if you were responding to something in my post specifically.

There are certainly more simple examples of identity and creativity than that of humans -though levels and types of self-awareness and true personal decision increasingly come into play.

With humans and previous life forms, various steps happen to various individuals -affecting those which follow. However, we are not a direct product of initial simplicity.

DNA-based evolution became possible only after the formation of the elements -but evolution in is broadest sense (dynamic development and interaction leading to that which it naturally did) has "always" been happening.

Our type of bodies would not be possible in a pre-elemental environment, but a similar type of mental ability would still be possible and necessary to produce that which required it. The emergent pattern, if you will, of such could be based on any sort of interaction in the necessary configuration -just as the same software and processing can be done with different materials, etc. -though in a pre-elemental environment it would be pre-elemental stuff -so more like a different level of the same stuff. As our bodies are produced from elements, we are subject to them -and our ability is limited by that. A pre-elemental mind -interfacing on a more basic level -would actually have greater power to affect change.

 

[Etritonakin]

CAN NO LONGER EDIT OP -so posting edited version here

From the human perspective, we see that "nature" will follow its present course based on its present arrangement and characteristics of its present components -which are themselves based on smaller components with specific characteristics -UNTIL the development of true conscious decision coupled with mechanisms necessary to alter the otherwise-inevitable course of nature.

Only then can certain things become possible -which would themselves be indicative of an identity and creativity.

It is often said that something can be known to have been created by man (or similar) because it could and would not have been produced by nature in the absence of man (or similar) -and sometimes because it is purposeful/purposefully complex.

As human (and previous) identity and creativity are believed by some to be purely natural developments, it would stand to reason (if true) that they were inevitable developments which required no conscious decision. That would be the case if the creativity of an identity was not required at any point leading to such.

However, our identity and creativity developed/were developed within an already-extremely-complex environment -and we had absolutely nothing to do with the process of creating that environment or ourselves. Furthermore, by the time we have any decision-making power or personal identity, we ourselves are already extremely complex and capable -essentially mass-produced before our personal identity is initiated -after which we learn to use our bodies and minds.

It could be similarly determined that creativity was necessary to produce the universe and elements (which lend themselves to DNA-based evolution and are also interactive components which can be manipulated to produce various characteristics and arrangements by life forms/creativity to alter environment and create desired environment, etc.) by comparing that which now exists to PRE-UNIVERSE/PRE-ELEMENTAL "nature" -which would be the same thing we are dealing with -but not yet arranged as such.

There are things which are specific to any level of complexity of that which exists, but there are also basic principles which apply to any level of complexity.

This truth applies to all levels: That which exists must be preceded by that which both GENERALLY and then SPECIFICALLY makes it possible.

As that which presently exists is an arrangement of that which existed before, it stands to reason that what is true from our perspective is BASICALLY true of the whole -an all-inclusive perspective -and that between the most simple state possible and the present, similar developments in similar order were necessary to alter the otherwise inevitable course of nature to that which is extremely and purposefully complex.

In other words, it would be perfectly "natural" -even necessary -for "everything" to have naturally developed an original identity and creativity in order to bring the universe and ourselves into being from initial simplicity.

An original, however, would necessarily be involved as increasingly able in becoming more complex and able -not able to decide to exist or develop, but increasingly responsible for every possible decision which required identity and creativity -certain things becoming possible only after becoming able to realize "I AM".

That which now exists was always generally possible, but the Big Bang and that which followed must have been made specifically possible -as indicated by their extremely complex and purposeful specificity. They required that something able to do so specified them.

Such would not be the case of the initiation of the necessary original identity and creativity from initial simplicity -but would become more true as the original became more capable of self-arrangement by conscious decision in a step-by-step process.

The singularity which preceded the Big Bang was not the simplicity which would be expected "in the beginning" -but could be more correctly likened to a seed which contained the massive information and arranging capability which was necessary to produce all which followed specifically from that which existed previously.

That which is believed by some to be true of DNA-based life forms -that they developed without previous creativity being necessary -would necessarily be true of an original -so it is not a bad point -it is simply pointed in the wrong way.

However, the fact that we and our universe did not develop directly from initial simplicity -but from extremely specific and purposeful complex ity means that something between initial simplicity and the initiation of our universe must have made it specifically possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From the human perspective, we see that "nature" will follow its present course based on its present arrangement and characteristics of its present components -which are themselves based on smaller components with specific characteristics -UNTIL the development of true conscious decision coupled with mechanisms necessary to alter the otherwise-inevitable course of nature.

Only then could certain things become possible -which would themselves be indicative of an identity and creativity.

As human (and previous) identity and creativity are believed by some to be purely natural developments, it would stand to reason that they were inevitable developments which required no conscious decision.

However, our identity and creativity developed/were developed within an already-extremely-complex environment -and we had absolutely nothing to do with the process of creating that environment or ourselves. Furthermore, by the time we have any decision-making power or personal identity, we ourselves are already extremely complex and capable -essentially mass-produced before our personal identity is initiated -after which we learn to use our bodies and minds.

As that which presently exists is an arrangement of that which existed before, it stands to reason that what is true from our perspective is true of the whole -an all-inclusive perspective -and that between the most simple state possible and the present, similar developments in similar order were necessary to alter the otherwise inevitable course of nature to that which is extremely and purposefully complex.

In other words, it would be perfectly "natural" -even necessary -for "everything" to have naturally developed an original identity and creativity in order to bring the universe and ourselves into being from initial simplicity.

An original, however, would necessarily be involved as increasingly able in becoming more complex and able -not able to decide to exist or develop, but increasingly responsible for every possible decision which required identity and creativity -certain things becoming possible only after becoming able to realize "I AM".

1. "complexity" is not an argument for design, nore does it require any artificial causes

2. the "normal flow of nature" can be interrupted by plenty of things, most of which aren't the result of conscious intent. Like for example the meteor impact 65 million years ago which pretty much ended the age of the dino and opened up plenty of new niches for mammals to thrive.

In summary: your argument seems to amount to:
"A powerful conscious entity is required to develop nature
"nature develops"
"therefor a powerful conscious entity"

Premise 1 is wrong, off course.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That which now exists was always generally possible, but the Big Bang and that which followed must have been made specifically possible -as indicated by their extremely complex and purposeful specificity. They required that something able to do so specified them.

This here, is the very core of the problem with your "reasoning".
It's an unjustified premise and a teleological fallacy.

Complexity is not an indicator of design or designers. At all.

As for "purposeful specificity" - that's just after-the-fact teleological nonsense.

Your entire post, is a gigantic argument from incredulity coupled with teleologically fallacious premises.

 

[Etritonakin]

1. "complexity" is not an argument for design, nore does it require any artificial causes

2. the "normal flow of nature" can be interrupted by plenty of things, most of which aren't the result of conscious intent. Like for example the meteor impact 65 million years ago which pretty much ended the age of the dino and opened up plenty of new niches for mammals to thrive.

In summary: your argument seems to amount to:
"A powerful conscious entity is required to develop nature
"nature develops"
"therefor a powerful conscious entity"

Premise 1 is wrong, off course.

Not actually what I said -or am saying.

In 2., you describe one part of the current course of nature affecting another.
A simple example of what I am talking about would be a particular Dino using what decision-making ability it had to prolong its life a while longer than if another decision was made -assuming it had true decision-making ability (not familiar with Dinos).
A more complex and capable decision-maker such as modern man could detect a meteor -and potentially alter its course -or even decide not to do so (if some scientist were depressed and saw no point in it, I guess).

Certain types and levels of complexity DO require a creative intelligence.

Some thing must precede a creative intelligence, and some must be preceded by a creative intelligence.

The complexity which leads to ORIGINAL self-awareness and creativity must simply naturally happen -but the complexity which requires such must be preceded by such.

It is assumed that the above is true of man -but the types and levels of complexity which preceded man and all other physical life do not actually support that idea -even in the (not actually) "simple" elements -which are only assumed by some to not have required a designer themselves.

Nothing about the Big Bang or what followed is anywhere near the original simplicity which is to be expected.

Unfortunately, we tend to focus on the controversy between different ideas rather than the basic question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In 2., you describe one part of the current course of nature affecting another.
A simple example of what I am talking about would be a particular Dino using what decision-making ability it had to prolong its life a while longer than if another decision was made -assuming it had true decision-making ability (not familiar with Dinos).

A more complex and capable decision-maker such as modern man could detect a meteor -and potentially alter its course -or even decide not to do so (if some scientist were depressed and saw no point in it, I guess).

​

Certain types and levels of complexity DO require a creative intelligence.

What types / levels?

How do you identify and measure them?
And how did you determine the tresholds? From which level onwards is "complexity" so "complex" that it requires an intelligence? And in what unit would you express that?

It is assumed that the above is true of man -but the types and levels of complexity which preceded man and all other physical life do not actually support that idea -even in the (not actually) "simple" elements -which are only assumed by some to not have required a designer themselves.

Nothing about the Big Bang or what followed is anywhere near the original simplicity which is to be expected.

Unfortunately, we tend to focus on the controversy between different ideas rather than the basic question.

You lost me.

 

[Etritonakin]

What types / levels?

How do you identify and measure them?
And how did you determine the tresholds? From which level onwards is "complexity" so "complex" that it requires an intelligence? And in what unit would you express that?



You lost me.

Let's say everything began as the "real" equivalent of ones and zeroes -essentially the most simple states -but there was no original programmer. Then let's say some dynamic force existed which stirred and affected them in various ways -resulting in various simple patterns and configurations -leading to more complex patterns and configurations.....
Only certain patterns and configurations -or processes -would be possible until they became an increasingly-complex processOR.
Complex processES require complex processORS -and vice-versa -increasingly -similar to how transistors can be arranged into logic gates, logic gates into more complex processors, etc. -essentially the same simple processes in different configurations -so on, so forth.
Simple interactions -things being simply aware of each other -become configured into more complex awareness, etc....


Anyway..... Do you think it would be more logical for simplicity to become the entire universe, the elements, physical life, etc. before self-awareness and creativity arose -or that they arose first and became the sort of processor which was necessary to cause the universe?

Why would it be less logical for a simple original self-awareness to develop from original simplicity -able to then mirror its simple environment in some early stage of memory -and itself within its simple environment -and develop both self and environment in a step-by-step process -than for the entire complex and purposeful universe, elements, DNA, interdependent physical life, individual identities awakening into already-extremely complex processors, etc. to precede such -without expecting a processor capable of the process -and of the nature indicated by the process?

(I believe one stumbling point is the idea that the singularity/big bang was the very beginning -and even perhaps that the universe is the sum of everything -which is at least suggested by the word UNIverse. Satisfied with disproving certain ideas about God and creation, why consider the matter?)

The inevitable course of "Nature" cannot be altered until it is mirrored in memory, a change is decided upon and the change is applied by interfacing with "Nature" -and that which is able to do so must naturally occur. Also... those changes -except when replicating what was previously possible -would reflect what was beneficial and purposeful for the "one" applying the changes. I am must precede I will -and I will must precede purposeful complexity.

The difference being... some things are OF A design -and some things MUST BE DESIGNED.
Some things are OF A purpose -and some thing MUST BE PURPOSED. The point of difference being true decision -it would have been or I could have made it otherwise -which requires some level of self-awareness -whether awareness of self in environment or the ability to have a perspective of one's self within one's self, etc., etc. (a bit of a house of mirrors -dependent upon number and fidelity of mirrors -and how they are arranged)

That which acts and that which is acted upon are one. We are made of the exact same things we experience -the only difference is configuration. Original self-awareness is where self and environment might separate -but only logically.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's say everything began as the "real" equivalent of ones and zeroes -essentially the most simple states -but there was no original programmer. Then let's say some dynamic force existed which stirred and affected them in various ways -resulting in various simple patterns and configurations -leading to more complex patterns and configurations.....
Only certain patterns and configurations -or processes -would be possible until they became an increasingly-complex processOR.
Complex processES require complex processORS -and vice-versa -increasingly -similar to how transistors can be arranged into logic gates, logic gates into more complex processors, etc. -essentially the same simple processes in different configurations -so on, so forth.
Simple interactions -things being simply aware of each other -become configured into more complex awareness, etc....


Anyway..... Do you think it would be more logical for simplicity to become the entire universe, the elements, physical life, etc. before self-awareness and creativity arose -or that they arose first and became the sort of processor which was necessary to cause the universe?

Why would it be less logical for a simple original self-awareness to develop from original simplicity -able to then mirror its simple environment in some early stage of memory -and itself within its simple environment -and develop both self and environment in a step-by-step process -than for the entire complex and purposeful universe, elements, DNA, interdependent physical life, individual identities awakening into already-extremely complex processors, etc. to precede such -without expecting a processor capable of the process -and of the nature indicated by the process?

(I believe one stumbling point is the idea that the singularity/big bang was the very beginning -and even perhaps that the universe is the sum of everything -which is at least suggested by the word UNIverse. Satisfied with disproving certain ideas about God and creation, why consider the matter?)

The inevitable course of "Nature" cannot be altered until it is mirrored in memory, a change is decided upon and the change is applied by interfacing with "Nature" -and that which is able to do so must naturally occur. Also... those changes -except when replicating what was previously possible -would reflect what was beneficial and purposeful for the "one" applying the changes. I am must precede I will -and I will must precede purposeful complexity.

The difference being... some things are OF A design -and some things MUST BE DESIGNED.
Some things are OF A purpose -and some thing MUST BE PURPOSED. The point of difference being true decision -it would have been or I could have made it otherwise -which requires some level of self-awareness -whether awareness of self in environment or the ability to have a perspective of one's self within one's self, etc., etc. (a bit of a house of mirrors -dependent upon number and fidelity of mirrors -and how they are arranged)

That which acts and that which is acted upon are one. We are made of the exact same things we experience -the only difference is configuration. Original self-awareness is where self and environment might separate -but only logically.

You wrote a lot, but failed to answer any of the questions that were asked in the post you are quoting.
Your post is just a collection of declarations, based on incredulity, ignorance, opinion and your own lack of imagination. No evidence whatsoever.

But none of this really matters.
I asked a bunch of questions about things you said previously.

Please answer those questions.
Here they are again:


What types / levels (of complexity require a "designer")?

How do you identify and measure them?
And how did you determine the tresholds? From which level onwards is "complexity" so "complex" that it requires an intelligence? And in what unit would you express that?

 

[Etritonakin]

You wrote a lot, but failed to answer any of the questions that were asked in the post you are quoting.
Your post is just a collection of declarations, based on incredulity, ignorance, opinion and your own lack of imagination. No evidence whatsoever.

But none of this really matters.
I asked a bunch of questions about things you said previously.

Please answer those questions.
Here they are again:


What types / levels (of complexity require a "designer")?

How do you identify and measure them?
And how did you determine the tresholds? From which level onwards is "complexity" so "complex" that it requires an intelligence? And in what unit would you express that?

1. Quite rude -might want to chill -doesn't bother me, but may affect your stress level.
1a. Not correct. I may have lost you, but I am not the one who is lost. Also -you can't really say I am making a bunch of stuff up yet lack imagination -you are contradicting yourself.
2. I wrote some background for the answers which I will provide at my will and leisure. I'm rather busy and don't follow your schedule.

 

[Etritonakin]

You wrote a lot, but failed to answer any of the questions that were asked in the post you are quoting.
Your post is just a collection of declarations, based on incredulity, ignorance, opinion and your own lack of imagination. No evidence whatsoever.

But none of this really matters.
I asked a bunch of questions about things you said previously.

Please answer those questions.
Here they are again:


What types / levels (of complexity require a "designer")?

How do you identify and measure them?
And how did you determine the tresholds? From which level onwards is "complexity" so "complex" that it requires an intelligence? And in what unit would you express that?

For now (at your will and leisure, of course), imagine the PRESENT course of earth and its life forms -but in the absence of man. Then consider the works of man. Man's capabilities were required for them.

Then consider the entire Big Bang and universe leading up to man -and reference it against initial simplicity.

 

[Etritonakin]

Please answer those questions.
Here they are again:


What types / levels (of complexity require a "designer")?

How do you identify and measure them?
And how did you determine the tresholds? From which level onwards is "complexity" so "complex" that it requires an intelligence? And in what unit would you express that?

Anything leading up to the first example of true decision could not require a designer. Anything made possible by true decision (basic design) requires a decision/designer. That which preceded and made decision possible was OF a design at each step, but not designed by decision.

You identify them and measure them by using math and logic in reference to the most simple state possible given what must have been necessary to allow for the present state.
Any "thing" which exists acts according to/may be expressed as math and logic.

An intelligence requires the most basic interactions possible to take place -from there, complexity and intelligence are essentially the same BASIC thing. Intelligence increases IN complexity WITH complexity. If you consider the "intelligence" of man, for example, you see that it is a complex arrangement of more simple interactions -all based on the most simple interactions possible -AND that certain types of interactions make others possible.
Similarly, before complex computers were possible, simple logic gates were necessary.

Each and every step of complexity/intelligence were essentially thresholds, but the major thresholds would be similar to those we see on our level -even though we are not in the environment of original simplicity... Acting independently, memory/mirroring/modeling simple decision, awareness, self awareness, etc... each making possible that which was otherwise not possible -and all dependent upon that which came before.

"Intelligence" is actually a fairly vague term -as its various aspects can sometimes exist without other aspects -and many aspects can also be configured together to become a more complex and capable intelligence -or various aspects can be augmented or diminished in relation to each other.

For example.... (DNA-based) "evolution" can actually correctly be described as an intelligent designer... It makes design decisions based on various factors in order to produce a more capable and effective design -there is input, a certain type and level of decision -and output. However, it is not (in and of itself) aware of itself -or that it is a designer -or that it is designing. It lacks a perspective of itself.

Some "intelligent" life form might be self-aware, as another example, but nowhere near as capable a designer as "evolution".

Evolution (broadest sense -dynamic development), creativity, design, awareness, self-awareness etc., are all aspects of the same whole -they all exist -but they all developed in a necessarily-specific order -and generally from simplicity to complexity.

(lost a bunch of text due to low battery, but....)

Being the first time considering a unit of measurement, purposeful complexity is quite accurate for now -moving from simple complexity and purpose (or the basic things from which they arose and became possible) to more complex -and eventually to things being purposed intentionally.

Perhaps the most important threshold is separation of self and environment, but it should also be acknowledged that there can be no true separation -only logical separation.

"Everything" can be described as ITself -and "everything" is its own environment.
All interactions happen within the one everything.
We might say one thing interacts with another -but they are both parts of the one.
If we say there are a hundred bottles of beer on the wall, they are actually each fractions of the one whole which exists. We count individual things because they are separated logically.
Humans are not separate from their environment -they are essentially made of exactly the same basic components -and are similarly separated logically -and are similarly fractions of the one whole.

That which allows for logical separation of self and environment is interaction -action (simple self) and reaction (simple environment) -but they are the same whole.

Some believe that the complex environment which is the universe preceded the first separation of what we might call a self and environment.

Considering the human level, that which humans do is indicative of them. Humans act upon their environment (upon which they are also dependent and of which they are composed) in ways which are made possible by their configuration -in ways which are indicative of their configuration -which are considered beneficial to the self. The INHABITANT affects ITSELF and the HABITAT in ways which are generally/usually beneficial to- and indicative of -the inhabitant.
If a human -by ability made possible by configuration -augments its environment extremely (builds a large and complex dwelling, for example) -and then separates itself logically by leaving the immediate scene -another human stumbling upon the scene could determine that one of a suitable configuration necessarily caused the augmentation -even in the absence of the original human.

The singularity/Big Bang/universe is an extremely augmented environment.
Extreme augmentation is possible, but only relatively locally.
Self and environment must always be in general balance overall.
In other words.... The existence of the universe is indicative of some sort of self able to augment environment -and must be at least near the same extremity.
However, that self -from our perspective -is not local.

Furthermore, self-and environment are indicative of each other.
The habitat requires a similar inhabitant.
Even more indicative of the original inhabitant is the preparation of extreme environment preceding and leading up to other inhabitants (by logical separation) -not just itself.


(Will have to check this later -tired)

 

[ecco]

Our type of bodies would not be possible in a pre-elemental environment

If there were no elements, no carbon, no oxygen, no hydrogen, there could be no bodies, our type or otherwise.

A pre-elemental mind -interfacing on a more basic level -would actually have greater power to affect change.

Are you somehow unaware that without a brain there is no mind?

No elements - No brain.
No brain - No mind.

 

[ecco]

Also -you can't really say I am making a bunch of stuff up yet lack imagination

That's about the only thing you have posted which makes sense. Unless you copied and pasted extensively from woo creo sites, then I would say you have a good imagination.

Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths also had good imaginations.

 

[ecco]

For now (at your will and leisure, of course), imagine the PRESENT course of earth and its life forms -but in the absence of man. Then consider the works of man. Man's capabilities were required for them.

For millions of years, the dinosaurs and the cockroaches got along very well without the works of man. For most of the history of man, he didn't produce too many works.

Then consider the entire Big Bang and universe leading up to man -and reference it against initial simplicity.

You seem to believe earthly humans are the ultimate desired end product of the universe. That's very egotistical of you.

 

[Etritonakin]

For millions of years, the dinosaurs and the cockroaches got along very well without the works of man. For most of the history of man, he didn't produce too many works.





You seem to believe earthly humans are the ultimate desired end product of the universe. That's very egotistical of you.

not sure what you are saying, but -initial thoughts...
As far as many humans believe, humans are the physical life form most capable of making the physical universe and all other physical things within it subject to itself.
Therefore we would be the present end product of the (physical) universe.
The fact that I believe that the sum of everything became a self-aware self subject to itself before creating other selves within a "universe" to which they were subject means that I am extremely non-egotistical.
As the physical universe once did not exist as such -and may not be the sum of all things -it may not be as UNI VERSal as some might expect.

(more later)

 

[Etritonakin]

What types / levels?

How do you identify and measure them?
And how did you determine the tresholds? From which level onwards is "complexity" so "complex" that it requires an intelligence? And in what unit would you express that?



You lost me.

Anyway..... You should -at the very very least -be able to accept that which produced the singularity (defined by scientists as "we don't know", by the way) /Big Bang/universe was capable of doing so -that the portion of what happened we see could not have happened without the portion we do not see or yet understand completely.

"Bang" is simply not sufficient -and that particular Bang was as complex and specific as we know to be possible thus far.

It was also as purposeful as it has specifically unfolded to become thus far.