Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[anonymous66]

anonymous66 wrote: Couldn't it be the case that evolution looks to be goal-directed because it is goal-directed?

I think the word you want is progressive - upwardly mobile. There is an explanatory gap there: why should primitive organisms progress to something other than more robust primitive organisms? And why should they have a will to survive at all, isn't at least a germ of intelligence required for that to exist? People talk about the leap of faith required to believe in God, but it seems to me a leap of faith is also required to believe in Darwinian theory, the jigsaw puzzle is missing too many pieces.

I accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (through the process of natural selection). Does that mean I "believe in Darwinian theory"?

And I like arguments for the idea that evolution is guided- the 2 ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

But- playing devil's advocate- I can conceive of a process by which organisms evolve in such a way that the ones that avoid pain and death tend to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Isn't it conscious experiences that cause the avoidance of death- not necessarily intelligence? (can you tell I like arguments for panpsychism- the idea being that consciousness (subjective experience) itself is a fundamental property of all matter? )

[Felix]

Isn't it conscious experiences that cause the avoidance of death- not necessarily intelligence?

Without intelligence, what is "death" and how is it recognized as something to avoid? And I hear that childbirth can be very painful, but that hasn't kept women from engaging in it.

[Felix]

I accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (through the process of natural selection). Does that mean I "believe in Darwinian theory"?

It's defined as essentially a random process, if you don't accept that, you are not a daydream believer or a homecoming queen - well, you may be the latter but not the former.

[Sculptor1]

No
Because it does not even look goal oriented. It is results oriented, which is exactly backwards. Successful reproduction being the result of fitness to do well in your environment is rewarded with more progeny.

How can a bacteria identify a goal please?
How can a giraffe figure out it wants a longer neck then grow one?
Think about it!

A giraffe and a bacteria are not evolution.

FFS.

I am not saying I agree with him that evolution shows all the characterisitics of mind, though I think it does some.

You are wrong. Evolution looks nothing like goal orientation. It's not mindful in ANY sense.

Making decisions is not one I see demonstrated, though if determinism holds, then minds don't make decisions, they simply process stuff like a pachinko game, but one that can come up with solutions. And evolution does come up with solutions.

Irrelevant nonsense. All to avoid answering my questions

In any case your argument wasn't really on point since he was not attributing the mind to single individual organisms but to the whole shebang.

My argument was EXACTLY on point, since the assertion was that evolution looked goal oriented. I said NOTHING about mind.
I simply want to know HOW a goal could even be identified, but a giraffe or a bacteria.
If you don't like those examples, pick one of your own.
Now tell me how an individual or a whole species, could evolution towards a goal?
Since a goal would have to be identified. How?

[Sculptor1]

I accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (through the process of natural selection). Does that mean I "believe in Darwinian theory"?

It's defined as essentially a random process, if you don't accept that, you are not a daydream believer or a homecoming queen - well, you may be the latter but not the former.

Many a Darwinian evolutionist will say "it is anything BUT a random process".
There is a mechanism that favours particular variations based on reproductive success. It is not "random" in the sense that a watch could never put itself together from a pile of metal; or an airplane could be reconstructed from a breakers yard full of airplane parts by a wind that whistles through the yard.
The results depend of favoured variations, preserved through generational change.

[anonymous66]

Isn't it conscious experiences that cause the avoidance of death [edited to add-"and pain"]- not necessarily intelligence?

Without intelligence, what is "death" and how is it recognized as something to avoid? And I hear that childbirth can be very painful, but that hasn't kept women from engaging in it.

Avoiding death is basically just avoiding pain, isn't it? It seems like your line of reasoning would lead one to conclude: any organism that avoids pain must be intelligent. But that doesn't seem true.

[Felix]

Scupltor1: Many a Darwinian evolutionist will say "it is anything BUT a random process".

Only those that don't understand the theory: it supposes that speciation requires random mutation.

Scupltor1: There is a mechanism that favors particular variations based on reproductive success.

I can't make sense of that sentence, what "mechanism" is that?

anonymous66: Avoiding death is basically just avoiding pain, isn't it?

No, death is not necessarily painful, in fact if an animal has been badly injured, it may offer a release from pain. Wild animals have been known to go into a semi-comatose, trance-like state when death is near - don't know how common this is, but rabbits will do it when they have been caught by a predator.

But you used the word "conscious experience." What does that mean, doesn't it imply an intelligent response to the environment? - as opposed to a mindless mechanical reaction.

[anonymous66]

But you used the word "conscious experience." What does that mean, doesn't it imply an intelligent response to the environment? - as opposed to a mindless mechanical reaction.

By conscious I mean the quality of having a "what it is like-ness". A first-person experience.

There is also a concept known as the Great Chain of Being (from Panpsychism, intuition, and the great chain of being by Luke Roelofs and Jed Buchanan 2019) it's an intuition that suggests there is a hierarchy of consciousness. 1. It would be absurd to deny that adult, mature, awake humans beings are conscious. 2. It would be surprising to deny that birds, mammals, cephalopods, human infants, and dreaming humans are conscious. 3. Neither denying or affirming consciousness would be surprising- this category is for fish, invertebrates, human foetuses, sleepwalking humans. 4. Affirming consciousness would be surprising- this category is for non-animal organisms (plants, bacteria, fungi), human embryos, humans in dreamless sleep, coma. 5. Affirming consciousness would verge on absurdity- inanimate objects, corpses, everything else (fluid, light, etc).

It's also the case that we can't really say why we can imagine that mammals have a "what-it-is-likeness" and fish do not. Isn't it more likely that this quality continues "down" to even the most simple organisms, and even into inanimate objects? That is one of the ideas suggested by panpsychism.

What do you mean by intelligent in this context?

[Felix]

Isn't it more likely that this quality continues "down" to even the most simple organisms, and even into inanimate objects?

Sounds like what I am calling intelligence, which when you get down to the simplest biological organism, becomes an inconscient (unreflective) will to exist. It is of course harder to account for consciousness/intelligence in inanimate objects - except for pet rocks of course which can be quite empathetic.

[dawwg]

It should be obvious that God would have to become more than merely an abstract concept to one to make a difference in one's life and the way one lives it. The Impersonal God is never invited to business conventions.

I think an impersonal God(s) can still command a "fear of God."

Although you are quite right, that an impersonal God cannot command a "love of God."

Evidence of "God loves you" as a clue to God's intent to make you into a 'zero' (15 - Love; get it?) then put all the zeroes in an imaginative metaphorical accounting such as the sinking of the Titanic etc. puts God as you opponent in a game with real consequences. Recourses to avoid calamity are limited to patience and equanimity. How much sh/t can you put up with from the forces at (His) command?

[h_k_s]

I think an impersonal God(s) can still command a "fear of God."

Although you are quite right, that an impersonal God cannot command a "love of God."

Evidence of "God loves you" as a clue to God's intent to make you into a 'zero' (15 - Love; get it?) then put all the zeroes in an imaginative metaphorical accounting such as the sinking of the Titanic etc. puts God as you opponent in a game with real consequences. Recourses to avoid calamity are limited to patience and equanimity. How much sh/t can you put up with from the forces at (His) command?

You are just re-hashing Rene Descartes argument about the Evil Genius.

Descartes settled that already. He concluded that an Evil Genius would do nothing in the first place.

[dawwg]

The calories burned in the effort to ensure the dominance of God (all mighty) suggests otherwise.

[Newme]

Evolution is intelligence. I think of Stephen Hawking’s definition of intelligence as “ability to adapt to change.”

I'd suggest that evolution is mostly dumb luck, a random mutation produces a new base pair in the DNA and your offspring don't die [most mutations are deleterious so this is not normal]. If they actually breed better than you do it proves you're intelligent? Recombination during meiosis is just as non structured, you get few bits from one parent and few from the other in a pretty random fashion as far as we can tell to date. I think Hawking should have stuck to his field.

Maybe he was considering the bigger evolutionary picture (long way since apes), or even more immediate. EG: Your body adapts to change, renewing skin, tissue and even skeletal cells.

[Newme]

Evolution is intelligence. I think of Stephen Hawking’s definition of intelligence as “ability to adapt to change.”

LOL.

Stephen Hawking rarely commented on evolution, and if he did, he would never had made the mistake of saying it was intelligence.
In fact evolution is everything that intelligence is not.
Natural Selection is a completely unconscious, unintentional process.

Good point about the seemingly unconscious natural selection... and yet, we have evilved to become more adapted to our environments.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You are wrong. Evolution looks nothing like goal orientation. It's not mindful in ANY sense.

I say it has some characteristics of evolution. You then mention 'goal orientation', one of the characteristics of minds and say this demonstrates that it is not mindful in ANY sense. I don't think it can be useful to have a discussion with someone who thinks that argument makes senses.

Person 1: Cats are similar to humans. They have some traits in common.
Person 2: Humans are bipeds. They have no traits in common with cats.
It is relevent if minds are not goal oriented but only seem to be. And determinism would lead to that conclusion. I am sorry if you have to lash out, instead of asking for clarification.

So it was both irrelevant AND off point? Both of those synonyms apply? Wow. Of course he was talking about the whole shebang. I was talking about minds and since he is comparing the whole shebang to individual minds, I brought up the qualities of minds. And hey, I can understand someone missing what I was getting at. It is a tough concept and I may not have communicated it well. But you still have a tendency to smack at things you do not understand, rather then asking for clarification. IOW you are still a poor interlocuter.

I know it's trying when people disagree with what you think is so obvious, but they perhaps you're not in the right place. Unless you like outrage, then I suppose you are.

I wondered why I had you on ignore. Now I know and back you go.