Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Faustus5]

When clowns like Pinker and Dawkins make huge slip ups and seem to attibute intentions and purposes where naturally selected traits express function they can't expect god botherers not to persist in their god delusion.

Well, what does it mean to attribute intentions or purpose in the first place? What rules or facts are there out there which tell us when we’re doing it correctly or when it is inappropriate? Certainly it isn’t a matter of taking a measurement or pointing a device at something.

So if having intentions and purpose isn’t like having a mass or charge, it looks as if it is going to be something like satisfying some sort of consensual norm.

People who love to think that everything happens for a reason, or that "nature" TRIES to balance things, or mother nature is behind it all can find such careless talk as encouraging, despite strict Darwinist principles.

What we should conclude from this is that there is a spectrum of usefulness and applicability to intentional or teleological language, not that it is always bad. Thinking of genes as “selfish” in the way Dawkins intended is very different from thinking nature consciously “tries” to do things.

If even the metaphor of “selfish genes” is too much for you, why not pursue this line of thinking to its logical conclusion and go with John Searle, who denies that organs have functions. There are biologists who would agree!

I just think that going down that route robs you of useful language tools, and that you’d find yourself helplessly slipping into using them occasionally anyway.

Becasue the idea that nature has a pattern or intention of any kind is a childish delusion. So there is no need for a useful tool to forge a distinction that cannot and does not exist.

There are in fact patterns in nature which intentional or teleological language highlights and focusses our thinking on, which is why this way of talking is never, ever going to go away. Nor should it.

[Sculptor1]

Becasue the idea that nature has a pattern or intention of any kind is a childish delusion. So there is no need for a useful tool to forge a distinction that cannot and does not exist.

There are in fact patterns in nature which intentional or teleological language highlights and focusses our thinking on, which is why this way of talking is never, ever going to go away. Nor should it.

Would you like to substatiate this claim with an example.

[Atla]

Evolution as a process that moves forward, doesn't exist, once humans are gone, evolution will probably immediately stop and life will quickly fall apart on Earth. It was never more than a necessary part of the road that led from a simple state such as the Big bang, to the human.

Looking back, it looks like it was moving forward on its own, some even romanticize it and say that evolution is driven, life strives to survive etc., but that's all an illusion. The "end goal" of evolution is something in the present era where humans are still present, it doesn't lie in the future.

[Steve3007]

Evolution as a process that moves forward, doesn't exist, once humans are gone, evolution will probably immediately stop and life will quickly fall apart on Earth. It was never more than a necessary part of the road that led from a simple state such as the Big bang, to the human.

Looking back, it looks like it was moving forward on its own, some even romanticize it and say that evolution is driven, life strives to survive etc., but that's all an illusion. The "end goal" of evolution is something in the present era where humans are still present, it doesn't lie in the future.

I'm not sure if this is serious or satire. If serious: Are you saying that evolution (the process by which the phenotype expressions of random genetic mutations are selected by environmental pressures resulting in adaptations over time) will stop when humans go extinct and that life will fall apart on Earth?

[Atla]

Evolution as a process that moves forward, doesn't exist, once humans are gone, evolution will probably immediately stop and life will quickly fall apart on Earth. It was never more than a necessary part of the road that led from a simple state such as the Big bang, to the human.

Looking back, it looks like it was moving forward on its own, some even romanticize it and say that evolution is driven, life strives to survive etc., but that's all an illusion. The "end goal" of evolution is something in the present era where humans are still present, it doesn't lie in the future.

I'm not sure if this is serious or satire. If serious: Are you saying that evolution (the process by which the phenotype expressions of random genetic mutations are selected by environmental pressures resulting in adaptations over time) will stop when humans go extinct and that life will fall apart on Earth?

No, mutations won't stop and there still will be new species, but life in general will probably quickly deteriorate around the globe. These "environmental pressures" which always push evolution forward just the right way, are just an illusion. This is a deeper philosophy of course, where we view the history of the entire universe backwards. The standard view we all learned first is that we are here because this and this and this and this happened in the past.

The alternative view is that we are here NOW, therefore this and this and this and this had to happen in the past. Our past is a minimalistic route within many or infinite possibilities, as always. We are here NOW, we humans are really odd (well a few of us are anyway), there is something about us. The end station of evolution is probably something in the now, and the minimalistic route won't continue in the future so, no longer saved by infinitely unlikely odds, life will probably quickly deteriorate.

[Steve3007]

No, mutations won't stop and there still will be new species, but life in general will probably quickly deteriorate around the globe.

Life around the globe will quickly deteriorate in the absence of humans? That seems to me an odd view and I see reason for it to be true. What's going to cause life to deteriorate like this after our exit?

These "environmental pressures" which always push evolution forward just the right way, are just an illusion.

Nobody says that environmental pressures "push evolution forward just the right way". That's not how evolution works and I don't know who you think believes that it works like that.

This is a deeper philosophy of course, where we view the history of the entire universe backwards. The standard view we all learned first is that we are here because this and this and this and this happened in the past.

The alternative view is that we are here NOW, therefore this and this and this and this had to happen in the past.

I see no real difference between those two. As you've said, they're views. So they're two different ways of looking at the same real phenomenon. I'm here because of a series of events. A series of events has to happen for me to be here. Same thing.

Our past is a minimalistic route within many or infinite possibilities, as always.

Yes, agreed. But obviously we shouldn't fall for the fallacy that there's something miraculous about the current state of affairs simply because it's the current point in a sequence of vanishingly improbable events.

We are here NOW, we humans are really odd (well a few of us are anyway), there is something about us.

I guess so. You could say the entire Earth is odd. It's certainly not typical, if that's what you mean. Typical is empty space.

The end station of evolution is probably something in the now, and the minimalistic route won't continue in the future so, no longer saved by infinitely unlikely odds, life will probably quickly deteriorate.

There is no "end station" of evolution. It doesn't work like that.

[Steve3007]

Typo: "I see reason for it to be true." should be "I see no reason for it to be true.".

[Faustus5]

Would you like to substatiate this claim with an example.

I'll consider doing that when you answer a question I've asked you a couple times with no response from you: what are we doing when we attribute purpose or intentionality to something? What distinguishes correct and incorrect (or inappropriate) attributions?

We know it isn't something that normally gets decided by pointing an instrument at something or otherwise measuring a physical property, so what sort of "property" is purpose or intentionality?

[Sculptor1]

Would you like to substatiate this claim with an example.

I'll consider doing that when you answer a question I've asked you a couple times with no response from you: what are we doing when we attribute purpose or intentionality to something? What distinguishes correct and incorrect (or inappropriate) attributions?

We know it isn't something that normally gets decided by pointing an instrument at something or otherwise measuring a physical property, so what sort of "property" is purpose or intentionality?

You have no answer simply because you are wrong.

[Atla]

No, mutations won't stop and there still will be new species, but life in general will probably quickly deteriorate around the globe.

Life around the globe will quickly deteriorate in the absence of humans? That seems to me an odd view and I see reason for it to be true. What's going to cause life to deteriorate like this after our exit?

These "environmental pressures" which always push evolution forward just the right way, are just an illusion.

Nobody says that environmental pressures "push evolution forward just the right way". That's not how evolution works and I don't know who you think believes that it works like that.

This is a deeper philosophy of course, where we view the history of the entire universe backwards. The standard view we all learned first is that we are here because this and this and this and this happened in the past.

The alternative view is that we are here NOW, therefore this and this and this and this had to happen in the past.

I see no real difference between those two. As you've said, they're views. So they're two different ways of looking at the same real phenomenon. I'm here because of a series of events. A series of events has to happen for me to be here. Same thing.

Our past is a minimalistic route within many or infinite possibilities, as always.

Yes, agreed. But obviously we shouldn't fall for the fallacy that there's something miraculous about the current state of affairs simply because it's the current point in a sequence of vanishingly improbable events.

We are here NOW, we humans are really odd (well a few of us are anyway), there is something about us.

I guess so. You could say the entire Earth is odd. It's certainly not typical, if that's what you mean. Typical is empty space.

The end station of evolution is probably something in the now, and the minimalistic route won't continue in the future so, no longer saved by infinitely unlikely odds, life will probably quickly deteriorate.

There is no "end station" of evolution. It doesn't work like that.

I disagree, the odds of us being here are so unfathomably small, any serious philosophy has to start with addressing this problem.

[Steve3007]

"What do you mean by A? I agree about B. I disagree about C. What do you mean by D?"
"I disagree with the above."

Grrr. I shouldn't be surprised and should by now have learnt the lesson never to reply to more than one point at a time when replying to certain posters. But I clearly haven't.

---

Well, what does it mean to attribute intentions or purpose in the first place?

Since Sculptor is doing his usual thing I'll chip in if you like. I'd say that the only way we can meaningfully define intention/purpose is to, so to speak, point to something and say "That thing has intention/purpose. Look at what it does." That's what we do. We define intention/purpose as being what humans have. If we then look for evidence of it in things that weren't made/arranged/started by humans then we look for parallels with things that were made/arranged/started by humans. Hence arguments about watchmakers and such like.

So if we want to try to pin down observable properties of systems which we can label as "the property of having been created with intention/purpose" we have to look for those properties in things that were created by humans.

[Atla]

"What do you mean by A? I agree about B. I disagree about C. What do you mean by D?"
"I disagree with the above."

Grrr. I shouldn't be surprised and should by now have learnt the lesson never to reply to more than one point at a time when replying to certain posters. But I clearly haven't.

My whole comment is usually the point. I myself find it rude and meaningless when people brake it up into contextless parts.

[Steve3007]

My whole comment is usually the point. I myself find it rude and meaningless when people brake it up into contextless parts.

So if I agree with some parts of what you've said, disagree with other parts and don't understand some other parts, so need to ask questions about the, it would be rude of me to say so?

[Steve3007]

Taking this post:

No, mutations won't stop and there still will be new species, but life in general will probably quickly deteriorate around the globe. These "environmental pressures" which always push evolution forward just the right way, are just an illusion. This is a deeper philosophy of course, where we view the history of the entire universe backwards. The standard view we all learned first is that we are here because this and this and this and this happened in the past.

The alternative view is that we are here NOW, therefore this and this and this and this had to happen in the past. Our past is a minimalistic route within many or infinite possibilities, as always. We are here NOW, we humans are really odd (well a few of us are anyway), there is something about us. The end station of evolution is probably something in the now, and the minimalistic route won't continue in the future so, no longer saved by infinitely unlikely odds, life will probably quickly deteriorate.

are you saying that it would be rude of me to ask about any individual part of it, and that anything I say must address all of it at once or none of it?

[Atla]

Taking this post:

No, mutations won't stop and there still will be new species, but life in general will probably quickly deteriorate around the globe. These "environmental pressures" which always push evolution forward just the right way, are just an illusion. This is a deeper philosophy of course, where we view the history of the entire universe backwards. The standard view we all learned first is that we are here because this and this and this and this happened in the past.

The alternative view is that we are here NOW, therefore this and this and this and this had to happen in the past. Our past is a minimalistic route within many or infinite possibilities, as always. We are here NOW, we humans are really odd (well a few of us are anyway), there is something about us. The end station of evolution is probably something in the now, and the minimalistic route won't continue in the future so, no longer saved by infinitely unlikely odds, life will probably quickly deteriorate.

are you saying that it would be rude of me to ask about any individual part of it, and that anything I say must address all of it at once or none of it?

Let's just forget it, our approaches are incompatible.