Philosophy Discussion Forums

Evolution proceeds by mutations which occur randomly. What seemingly moves forward can also go in the opposite direction. It just takes a bit of bad luck and you're screwed for the next 10 million years.

anonymous66 wrote: ↑May 17th, 2019, 7:49 am now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

snipped

Depends on the God who or which is believed in, or converted into. A Deistic God demands little or no moral commitment. A God enthroned in an organized religion automatically mandates certain moral claims and perspectives. An internally experienced God of divine union mysticism may drive the experiencer to practice charity or conversely to retreat to a monastic life. Etc.
One basic component of Judaism and Christianity is "repentance" which does not mean self-punishment, but rather a return to "the Source", with "holiness" resulting from repentance. Repentance is based on a word, metanoia, which means to go beyond one's current mind or mindset. Inasmuch as repentance in this sense is part of religious conversion, then a new life centered in "Spirit" rather than in culture is part of the "anything else that follows" per the OP's question.

anonymous66 wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 11:15 am

Newme wrote: ↑June 13th, 2019, 7:58 am
Evolution is intelligence. I think of Stephen Hawking’s definition of intelligence as “ability to adapt to change.”

I don't find this to be compelling. There are all kinds of things that adapt to change- rivers for instance. I don't consider a river to be intelligent.

A river changes and it will not have any new strategies or solutions. Gravity, the lay of the land will control what it does. Evolution produces solutions to various goals. It isn't teleological, but it does end up with new solutions - new ways to get food, get help in reproducing, moving, defending, avoiding...and so on. Rivers have no presented a new solution since their first few years of existence. And it's the same solution every time. Head downward or get pressed around by obstacles and its own water. And rivers do not engage in any proactive solutions. They react, period. If we look at minds, at least in part, as finding new solutions and problem solving, then evolution is doing this.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 6:54 am

anonymous66 wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 11:15 am

I don't find this to be compelling. There are all kinds of things that adapt to change- rivers for instance. I don't consider a river to be intelligent.

A river changes and it will not have any new strategies or solutions. Gravity, the lay of the land will control what it does. Evolution produces solutions to various goals. It isn't teleological, but it does end up with new solutions - new ways to get food, get help in reproducing, moving, defending, avoiding...and so on. Rivers have no presented a new solution since their first few years of existence. And it's the same solution every time. Head downward or get pressed around by obstacles and its own water. And rivers do not engage in any proactive solutions. They react, period. If we look at minds, at least in part, as finding new solutions and problem solving, then evolution is doing this.

Isn't this begging the question, though? (you're assuming that evolution is mindless) Couldn't it be the case that evolution looks to be goal-directed because it is goal-directed?

steveb1 wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 6:17 pm

anonymous66 wrote: ↑May 17th, 2019, 7:49 am now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

snipped

Depends on the God who or which is believed in, or converted into. A Deistic God demands little or no moral commitment. A God enthroned in an organized religion automatically mandates certain moral claims and perspectives. An internally experienced God of divine union mysticism may drive the experiencer to practice charity or conversely to retreat to a monastic life. Etc.
One basic component of Judaism and Christianity is "repentance" which does not mean self-punishment, but rather a return to "the Source", with "holiness" resulting from repentance. Repentance is based on a word, metanoia, which means to go beyond one's current mind or mindset. Inasmuch as repentance in this sense is part of religious conversion, then a new life centered in "Spirit" rather than in culture is part of the "anything else that follows" per the OP's question.

I see myself as a free agent who is aware that there are many religions and many conceptions of God. I sometimes wonder... what makes one concept of God better than others?

anonymous66 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 8:58 am Isn't this begging the question, though? (you're assuming that evolution is mindless) Couldn't it be the case that evolution looks to be goal-directed because it is goal-directed?

Sure. Though I was specifically saying that evolution had aspects of mind activity: problem solving and the creation of new things. I was arguing that rivers don't do what evolution does. Keeping my goal for the post rather humble and saying that it has aspects of mind. That it might have other aspect is another issue.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 6:07 pm I was arguing that rivers don't do what evolution does.

Fair enough. I agree.

anonymous66 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 8:58 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 6:54 am A river changes and it will not have any new strategies or solutions. Gravity, the lay of the land will control what it does. Evolution produces solutions to various goals. It isn't teleological, but it does end up with new solutions - new ways to get food, get help in reproducing, moving, defending, avoiding...and so on. Rivers have no presented a new solution since their first few years of existence. And it's the same solution every time. Head downward or get pressed around by obstacles and its own water. And rivers do not engage in any proactive solutions. They react, period. If we look at minds, at least in part, as finding new solutions and problem solving, then evolution is doing this.

Isn't this begging the question, though? (you're assuming that evolution is mindless) Couldn't it be the case that evolution looks to be goal-directed because it is goal-directed?

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!

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 6:59 pm

anonymous66 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 8:58 am

Isn't this begging the question, though? (you're assuming that evolution is mindless) Couldn't it be the case that evolution looks to be goal-directed because it is goal-directed?

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

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.

anonymous66 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 8:58 amIsn't this begging the question, though? (you're assuming that evolution is mindless) Couldn't it be the case that evolution looks to be goal-directed because it is goal-directed?

I think that depends on at what level you consider evolution. I'd suggest that it only looks directed until you understand the way in which it occurs, then it looks pretty random. If I add mutagenic chemicals to a bacterial culture I can increase the natural rate of mutation. The mutations I get are many and very varied, but I have to search though a lot until I find the one I was trying to achieve, if I'm lucky. Combining sexually reproducing organisms with a goal in mind is just as unreliable as anyone who breeds animals will tell you, the numbers game favours variability not the maintenance of an aim.

Mark1955 wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 2:25 am

anonymous66 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 8:58 amIsn't this begging the question, though? (you're assuming that evolution is mindless) Couldn't it be the case that evolution looks to be goal-directed because it is goal-directed?

I think that depends on at what level you consider evolution. I'd suggest that it only looks directed until you understand the way in which it occurs, then it looks pretty random. If I add mutagenic chemicals to a bacterial culture I can increase the natural rate of mutation. The mutations I get are many and very varied, but I have to search though a lot until I find the one I was trying to achieve, if I'm lucky. Combining sexually reproducing organisms with a goal in mind is just as unreliable as anyone who breeds animals will tell you, the numbers game favours variability not the maintenance of an aim.

But evolution is not mutation. Evolution includes natural selection for example. And here you end up with a problem solving process or the creation of solutions to getting dna around. Intentionality is just one property of minds. But then, if determinism is the case, intentionality in our minds is actually not goal direction but utterly caused.

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.

Felix wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 4:22 am

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.

For post-enlightenment people evolution by natural selection seems more probable than the myth of god. It's not easy to get 'inside' the medieval mind and know from one's own experience what it felt like to know nothing of the modern scientific mind set, in its sceptical quest for evidence.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 2:55 amBut evolution is not mutation. Evolution includes natural selection for example. And here you end up with a problem solving process or the creation of solutions to getting dna around. Intentionality is just one property of minds. But then, if determinism is the case, intentionality in our minds is actually not goal direction but utterly caused.

Asexually reproducing organisms, which are about 99% of all organisms since this is how the bacteria work, can only produce a variation by mutation. Sexually reproducing organisms can also vary the genes in specific individuals by chromosome recombination during meiosis and by the act of recombination that is the fusing of sperm and ovum, but this does not actually vary those in the pool. These are the mechanics of how an individuals decendents genetics change. No evidence of any form of intentional action has been shown for these events.

Natural selection is the process by which unsuccessful genes fail to reproduce, while the successful ones do. Evolution does not include natural selection it is the process of natural selection.

Let us take a simple example, there is a mutation during DNA replication; an adenine is replaced by a guanine. As a result the peptide strand does not fold correctly and the enzyme thus coded is non functional. This is the norm, 95% of all mutations are deleterious. As this enzyme is a part of the cells energy metabolising pathway, the mutant daughter cell replicates more slowly than it's non mutant neighbours. The percentage of such cells in a population inevitably falls as the other cells replicate faster; natural selection at work. No evidence of intentionality unless you wish to impute the intention to cause trouble.

Mark1955 wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 1:39 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 2:55 amBut evolution is not mutation. Evolution includes natural selection for example. And here you end up with a problem solving process or the creation of solutions to getting dna around. Intentionality is just one property of minds. But then, if determinism is the case, intentionality in our minds is actually not goal direction but utterly caused.

Asexually reproducing organisms, which are about 99% of all organisms since this is how the bacteria work, can only produce a variation by mutation.

Peachy, but then natural selection comes in. We have a complicated stochastic process that create solutions and produces diverse ecosystems. That's a lot like parts of minds. Evolution is not just mutation.

Sexually reproducing organisms can also vary the genes in specific individuals by chromosome recombination during meiosis and by the act of recombination that is the fusing of sperm and ovum, but this does not actually vary those in the pool. These are the mechanics of how an individuals decendents genetics change. No evidence of any form of intentional action has been shown for these events.

I never claimed there was intention. In fact I think in my previous posts I specifically mentioned it wasn't there. It was other aspect of mind that I thought were present. Not my idea, got this from Gregory Bateson.

Natural selection is the process by which unsuccessful genes fail to reproduce, while the successful ones do. Evolution does not include natural selection it is the process of natural selection.

And mutation. BEfore you or someone said it was mutation. I broadened it to include NS and now evolution is NS. It's a few things.

No evidence of intentionality unless you wish to impute the intention to cause trouble.

And again, I did not argue there was intentionality, however, again, I will point out that determinism puts intentionality in our minds as a potential quale, since we are simply pushed forward by causes, chemical machines produce solutions to problems inevitably. Libet's experiments and so on. IOW intentionality may be an experience that is misleading. Internal and external causes lead to those 'decisions' and 'goals' that are made, inevitably in us.