Philosophy Discussion Forums

Jklint wrote:Evolution is evolution which works on the "materials" supplied to it. It could have been stated that "Evolution creates the mental from the material" and isn't this exactly what it does?

The problem is that by "evolution" we mean "biological evolution" only. What I suggest is replacing the latter by "biological+mental evolution".

Second. As it seems for me, the mental is not created from the material, and both are equally important. For example, I hold that to account for consciousness and to construct the effective theory of consciousness, we have first to construct an appropriate epistemological framework. The one I suggest assumes that consciousness (as a natural ability to deal with physical signals and transform them into the increments of information), matter, and energy are three equally important factors that influence the existence and development of our Reality. In other words, mental should be treated as fundamental as material and energetic.

Third. There are good reasons to believe that consciousness and life are inseparable. Consciousness is required for there to be life. Also, I hold that all the organisms are equally conscious as they are equally alive. I mean that all the living organisms possess the equally potent and expediently evolved exemplars of consciousness (otherwise they wouldn't be alive).

[...]

UniversalAlien wrote:Evolution is a scientific theory not a philosophical concept. But this is a philosophy forum not a scientific forum and so philosophical speculation can be asked and given. So in asking the original question "Why Evolution? And where does it lead?" I was not trying to question the validity of the theory of evolution but rather assuming the theory to be correct and then attempting to ask for the ramifications. If there are no ramifications to evolution then maybe it should be considered a trite and unimportant biological observation - most would probably not see it {evolution} as trite; therefor its importance, significance and yes even its direction are valid considerations. If biological entities are in fact 'evolving' then to me this is a process with a direction; it is not simply changes in form for the sake of variety. Now we know evolution talks of survival of the fittest - that statement would automatically beg the questions 'why survive' and 'fittest for what purpose' other than survival? OR is survival only for its own sake? If survival is only for its own sake then maybe we cannot ask And where does it lead? But if we then assume that then can we really say that an evolutionary process is occurring? And if evolution is not in fact occurring then we can ask if the scientific theory of evolution has any validity even in the field of science? Another words does evolution have any meaning past the indicative observation that the fittest survive and observed changes in form and structure allow for better chances of survival?

A CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF EVOLUTION

Hi UniversalAlien,

I do not know much about evolution (it does not seem very interesting to me), but cross-reading this thread I am asking myself whether you are not a follower of the old interpretation of evolution. The old interpretation of evolution was: survival of the fittest, and: fittness (and other positive properties) can be cultivated. That means: evolution has a direction. And this lead to eugenics. The new or newer interpretation rised with Thomas Hunt Morgan studying the fly Drosophila melanogaster and finding out that genetic chances happen by chance. This observation put an end to eugenics and freed us from killing or castrating our weaker fellow human-beings in order to keep the human gene pool pure and healthy.

So, what I want to communicate to you is: Blind chance and absence of direction is the good message.

Let me give you an example: In earlier times, following the old interpretation of evolution, society wanted to support only the strong human beings. Why? - Because they, in future generations, will make the human race even stronger. Today an Austrian professor of genetics and quite a popular scientist writes a book defending the thesis that society is best prepared for the future fostering the biggest variety of different individuals, interests and talents: http://www.amazon.de/Die-Durchschnittsf ... 3711000223

I rubbed my eyes when I realized that evolution today alredy is not about being worried about being the fittest and about survival anymore.

Best wishes philohof

Serge_Patlavskiy wrote: As it seems for me, the mental is not created from the material, and both are equally important.

Then where does it come from? What creates "the mental"?

it might be irreducible, i.e., not explicable in terms of anything else. I rather favour that view.

Jklint wrote: Then where does it come from? What creates "the mental"?

If you wish to have my answer, you have first to agree that there are no simple answers to simply formulated questions. So, are you ready to work hard to understand my explanation? You will have, as minimum, to read my paper.

Emphasizing the importance of the author-reader cooperation when examining complex ideas presented in his "Critique of Pure Reason", Kant writes therein: "The reader, I should judge, will feel it to be no small inducement to yield his willing co-operation, when the author is thus endeavouring, according to the plan here proposed, to carry through a large and important work in a complete and lasting manner". (Sorry I am not allowed providing links to the source yet).

Serge_Patlavskiy wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


If you wish to have my answer, you have first to agree that there are no simple answers to simply formulated questions. So, are you ready to work hard to understand my explanation? You will have, as minimum, to read my paper.

(Sorry I am not allowed providing links to the source yet).

I don't think I would have the requisite brain power to understand it. So as Papageno said in the Magic Flute when confronting the higher mysteries "I'll Pass" but I do thank you for the offer.

Btw, it's usually the "simply formulated questions", the ones which establish a context, that are the most fertile in yielding a response.

Philohof:

I rubbed my eyes when I realized that evolution today alredy is not about being worried about being the fittest and about survival anymore.

You seem to be saying that evolution used to be all about telling people to kill the weak. But now it's much better because it's all about telling people to encourage diversity. Do you think you might ever be able to accept the concept of a scientific theory that attempts to describe the world without telling it how to behave? If you could, I think that would be a step forward.

Steve3007 wrote: Do you think you might ever be able to accept the concept of a scientific theory that attempts to describe the world without telling it how to behave?

Dear Steve,

that, of course, is the ideology of science: describing the world without intervening. Without doing anything, just describing, objectively. If you believe that, you cannot be critical towards science anymore.

So do you think it's impossible to describe the development of species by a process of natural selection whereby random variations are acted on by environmental pressure without killing people?

I take your point about subjectivity. But I can't help thinking you're being a little pessimistic!

Steve3007 wrote:So do you think it's impossible to describe the development of species by a process of natural selection whereby random variations are acted on by environmental pressure without killing people?

I take your point about subjectivity. But I can't help thinking you're being a little pessimistic!

Dear Steve, to be honest, I expected your response to be much worse. Well, "worse", in the sense that it would not be able for me to provide any answer to it.

I think you are touching here the problem of communication between science and public.

To give a direct answer to your question: Yes, I think today it is possible "to describe the development of species by a process of natural selection whereby random variations are acted on by environmental pressure without killing people?" - because scientific findings allowed for a change from striving for cultivation of human properties to the attitude that diversity is the consequence of the theory of evolution. But you did not like that solution. I, for myself, think that we can be glad about this solution, because from the late 19th century until 1945 eugenics was a serious problem.

But that does not answer the bigger, the more general problem, that of communication between science and the public. My impression here is: This communication is changing. Currently, I am reading letters from a medical reseacher of the 1950s who was strictly against scientific medical topics being discussed in the broader public. But today we are in the era of preventive medicin. That requires that more and more people take an interest in the scientific background of new drugs and therapies. This development also implies that science cannot stay "pure" anymore and has to reflect also on the social consequences of new scientific findings, that is: of how people will take up and understand scientific information.

But that's an open development. I do not know, where it is going.

Best wishes philohof

They used to teach the positive aspects on plant propagation to produce better plants. Luther Burbank was given as a scientific hero. Now they are screaming about the evils of GMOs {genetically modified foods}. Dog breeding is still popular for producing show winning dogs yet I once read that mixed breeda are healthier; same might be said about humans of mixed genealogy being healthier than those of the same genetic background. That said it would still not discount direction in evolution or genetics. Isn't the supposed fact that diversity produces a superior being indicative of an evolutionary direction. Does this not apparently show that there is in fact a reason for the apparent randomness of evolutionary process? And is in fact evolution seeking a superior being through natural selection?

Thank you - lovely questions A suggestion: perhaps it would be productive to shift the basis of our examination of these questions (which has depended so much on jargon derived, at best, from theories and partial facts about evolution) towards a fresh model that we can look at and progressively dismantle or refine with the intention of arriving at a clearer, more coherent picture of the human condition – which I presume to be the purpose of philosophy.

All we need to agree on at this stage is that evolution is a fundamental property of Nature, sufficient proof of which is the flowering of human consciousness. If we are not agreed on this, then we don’t really have a basis for discussion: with respect, evolution is beyond theory; the mechanisms may be speculative, but the fossil and other evidence of the overall progressive transformation of life which it reflects, is not. (Sorry about the Scriptures… but perhaps evolution can be seen as a kind of minimum common ground where science and religion can converse.)

Viewing life as a 'game', for instance, (trying to understand ultimate causes where facts are few, seems to require metaphorical tools) offers us an intuitively plausible model so that; “… where does it lead?” can then, perhaps, be seen to lie in the game itself. Using this metaphor for Homo sapiens, for me, seems to lead to four inter-related principles, or ‘laws’ of Nature… to consider.

We are taking evolution to be factual. The other three aspects of the game, also given below, may be discounted by some as merely poetic or subjective. However, as this is where scientific enquiry begins anyone is, by any means, free to disprove them… after all, problems of disproof are also part of the record of evidence by which to test the model… • Evolution is the name of the game our Universe plays. Biological evolution and the consciousness which emerges from it is the hard evidence the game has been going on for at least three billion years. For human consciousness the game is relatively new, it is the process whereby Unity can be perceived and increasingly expanded.

• Unification or at-one-ment is a name for the destination, the joy or its higher octaves, the inducement to play, ‘winning’; evolution ensures that eventually everyone ‘wins’. (I speculate that suffering has its roots in ignorance of this principle). • Intentionality is the technique, the tools of the game: consciousness, responsibility, free will, choice, vision, creativity, style, energy, attitude, mood, exertion, every ‘thought, word and deed’ and so on…

• Karma is linked to intentionality. It is a convenient name borrowed from Sanskrit, for the rules of the game, and is therefore the metaphysical equivalent of what we call physics. It ensures that the game is controlled and all our intentions, both ’negative’ and ‘positive’, are impartially and consequentially fulfilled in terms of ‘spiritual’ evolution.

Philohof: Sorry, late reply:

scientific findings allowed for a change from striving for cultivation of human properties to the attitude that diversity is the consequence of the theory of evolution. But you did not like that solution. I, for myself, think that we can be glad about this solution, because from the late 19th century until 1945 eugenics was a serious problem.

My objection to this solution was not that it has a worse outcome than eugenics. It probably has a much better outcome. My objection is that it still seems to me to misunderstand what scientific theories are supposed to do. Like eugenics, it still seems to suggest that evolution is telling us how we ought to behave, rather than describing how we do behave. If we continue to see these attempted descriptions as prescriptions then things like eugenics are still a threat.

This development also implies that science cannot stay "pure" anymore and has to reflect also on the social consequences of new scientific findings, that is: of how people will take up and understand scientific information.

I think it is very important for the findings of scientific investigation to be used and acted upon responsibly. But I think it is equally important not to mix the attempt at a description with the prescriptions - the value judgements. Of course, it may well turn out that there are certain things, like human consciousness, that cannot in any accurate way be given value-free descriptions. But I don't see that as a reason to add value judgements to the things that do, to a greater or lesser extent, lend themselves to such descriptions.

Science may or may not, to a greater or lesser extent, with a greater or lesser degree of certainty, be able to describe how human nature currently appears to work. That is not the same thing as telling us what we ought to do.

UniversalAlien:

Isn't the supposed fact that diversity produces a superior being indicative of an evolutionary direction.

No, because this is not a fact. It may be a fact that genetic diversity tends to reduce the incidence of genetically propogated diseases and therefore tends to increase the incidence of survival. But that has nothing to do with "superior beings". It has to do with the central, almost tautological, principle of evolution that:

Creatures which have characteristics which are conducive to survival in the particular environment in which they find themselves will tend, on average, to survive better than others in that particular environment.

This is a restatement of "survival of the fittest". Another, slightly shorter, restatement might be: "survial of those that are most capable of surviving."

I challenge you to find anything in there which is suggestive of direction towards anything other than adaption to the current environment. Remember, the word "fit" refers to a thing and the thing to which it fits. As in: "My hat fits on my head."

Bruce Relly:

evolution ensures that eventually everyone ‘wins’. (I speculate that suffering has its roots in ignorance of this principle)

You seem to define "win" in this context as the acheivement, through consciousness, of the thing that you call Unity. Could you explain more what you mean by "Unity"? You seem to be using the existence of consciousness in humans as evidence that the process of evolution has a direction towards this Unity. Is that right?

Steve3007 wrote:Science may or may not, to a greater or lesser extent, with a greater or lesser degree of certainty, be able to describe how human nature currently appears to work. That is not the same thing as telling us what we ought to do.

You are mistaken in that morality automatically follows from what is identified as loving or hateful. So when you say X behaviour is in (pseudo)scientific fact loving, but I don't say people should do X, then that only means by reasonable judgment that you are perverse in not advocating people to do the right and good, but you did already stake a claim as to what is right and good.

To distinghuish descriptive - from prescriptive - natural selection theory is actually quite difficult. Noticeably most all scientists fail in doing it, because to distinghuish descriptive from prescriptive requires to acknowledge love subjectively, requires to subjectively acknowledge a spiritual domain in which love might be, or not be.

Few other theories in science are based on the notion of "success" (differential reproductive success). There is no theory of differential gravitational success, which theory might describe rocks rolling furthest down a hill according to their characteristics. So the problem seems to be all with science, scientists failing to acknowledge a spiritual domain, and thereby illegitemately putting love and hate into the material category, which equates to making a pseudoscience of good and evil.

Syamsu:

I didn't really understand your first two paragraphs.

Few other theories in science are based on the notion of "success" (differential reproductive success). There is no theory of differential gravitational success, which theory might describe rocks rolling furthest down a hill according to their characteristics. So the problem seems to be all with science, scientists failing to acknowledge a spiritual domain, and thereby illegitemately putting love and hate into the material category, which equates to making a pseudoscience of good and evil.

Evolution is based on these notions:

1. Individuals who possess traits that are conducive to survival in a particular environment will tend to survive in that environment.

2. Traits are hereditary.

3. Inheritence is not 100% accurate.

That's pretty much it. Do you think any of the above 3 statements are factually incorrect? (The first one is a tautology.) If not, is there something else, that is not really there, that you are reading into the theory of evolution?