Since nature hasn’t reason- unless one is a Spinozan, a Liebnitzian in regard to monads or another form of theist perhaps, nature hasn’t any idea of what is or isn’t complex. The fudge factor would be including human thought as nature.
Complexity is a qualia rather than quanta. Qualia exist in human thought. Computers don’t have qualia fortunately or they too would be predators as they physical related to nature, like humans. A human regards something as complex or not, and may debate about meanings that are also experienced as qualia rather than as some sort of quanta in the realm of extensions from perception known as the physical world that mind regards. Some assembly instructions on packages that arrive by mail can seem quite complex, and finding a superconductor that works at room temperature is complex because nature doesn’t make it easy to unravel from its cornucopia and discoverable possibilities of things can can be made to exist in nature. There are more connections in the Human brain than their are stars in the Milky Way Galaxy- 100 trillion in a brain vs 100 to 400 billion stars in the galaxy.
Qualia exist in human minds- not in nature. Nature for-itself is neither complex or simple. Complexity and other qualia are sentient characteristics. I was considering things like stars and galaxies too- not just animals. The question is of the OP is comparable to saying that poetry doesn’t exist in nature. I suppose the Milky Way would write great sonnets if it were pressed to, yet stars so far haven’t made any that were published. I believe it is possible that some qualia exist in animals, yet not much complexity. I am not sure what the limit would be for a chimp, whale or elephant on complex constructions. I suppose many animals have qualia with primary consciousness rather than higher order (reflective) consciousness.
Leave a comment