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

[Sy Borg]

Felix:

according to standard evolutionary theory, all but the simplest forms on life on earth are a genetic mistake, i.e., the serendipitous result of random mutation, so humankind would be the grand prize winner in that drawing.

So you're not using the word "mistake" in its standard sense? i.e. something that's gone wrong; an error.

I think Felix's point is that genetic mutations are the stuff of evolution and life. We are all "errors", all mutations. Which, it should be said is not necessarily the same as being a mutant, ie. an organism with profound genetic errors that reduce the organism's chances of survival.

[Felix]

But that's what a mutation is, isn't it, a genetic error? - that turned out to be beneficial in an evolutionary sense.

[Steve3007]

Yes, from the context in which the word was used, it is clear that Felix was using the word "mistake" to mean something close to "random". I was just pointing that that's not the standard definition of the word mistake. But it's interesting that a lot of people use it as a description of what evolution produces.

It's also interesting that the random aspect of evolution is often what is focused on, when evolution isn't really random at all. It selects from a sea of randomness. Just as selecting the letters HELLO from a sea of random Scrabble tiles is not random.

-- Updated Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:01 am to add the following --

But that's what a mutation is, isn't it, a genetic error? - that turned out to be beneficial in an evolutionary sense.

I'm probably being overly picky about word meanings. But strictly speaking, no I wouldn't say it is an error. It's a variation.

[Felix]

Not a good analogy, selection implies intelligence and scientists tell us that evolution is not an intelligent process.

[Steve3007]

"Artificial selection" implies an intelligent selector. "Natural selection" means selection by the environment.

-- Updated Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:04 am to add the following --

scientists tell us that evolution is not an intelligent process.

If you read the words of a writer who explicitly wants to demonstrate that evolution works without intelligent intervention, I guess you could conclude that.

My layman's understanding of the theory of evolution and of the scientific method is that it's simply an observation of what appears to happen in nature. It's up to philosophers to draw their own conclusions about such elusive concepts as intelligence.

Based on the available evidence, it seems likely that offspring have numerous variations from their parents which have sufficiently complex causes that they can be regarded as random. It also seems to be the case that, as a general rule, life in most environments is hard and most offspring die before having their own offspring. It also seems likely that this has resulted in the characteristics of species gradually changing, over long periods of time, as a result of these deaths caused by environmental pressure. It also seems likely that species diverge and split in a process called speciation. etc.

I think it's possible to present everything that appears likely to be true, according to the available evidence, without speculating one way or the other about concepts like "design" and "intelligence". Just present the evidence and allow readers to make up their own minds.

But maybe for most people that approach is too dry? Maybe most people want a "take home message"? I don't know.

[Felix]

Natural selection of random variations doesn't account for speciation, for that you need actual mutation, so according to evolutionary theory humankind is indeed the result of a genetic "mistake."

If you remove all the embellishments from evolutionary theory, you are left with the core idea that evolution is a blind process lazily bumbling along, which by sheer chance produced intelligent life. Why this should occur, why the evolutionary trend has been upwards, is not in the least explained by evolutionary doctrine.

[Sy Borg]

I think it's possible to present everything that appears likely to be true, according to the available evidence, without speculating one way or the other about concepts like "design" and "intelligence". Just present the evidence and allow readers to make up their own minds.

But maybe for most people that approach is too dry? Maybe most people want a "take home message"? I don't know.

Many, me included, suspect scientists of a "Move away please. There's nothing here to see" approach as a reaction to theistic speculations. It is begging credulity to suggest that all of life is fairly random when history suggests that chaos (not randomness, just ask Leo) is more an agent of change than a descriptor of the ever greater order found throughout the Earth's history, despite some interruptions.

I think the issue is one of scale. The biosphere as a whole is a dauntingly large and complex thing and, as with all things, researchers have been forced to "chunk" nature in order to make a complex task more approachable. However, when one pulls back from testable chunking and human-centric thinking and considers the history of the biosphere as a whole over the last four billion years, there appears to be an organism going through metamorphosis, becoming ever more information-dense with centres of high organisation, and capable of reproducing itself in other environments.

Of course, professional biologists need to be more careful than amateurs. It's fair to say that time scales and a lack of comparable biospheres mean that any assumptions made about the biosphere as a whole are necessarily speculative. However, it's not logical to claim that there is not a clear line of development in evolution - that evolution is a "bush" (Gould), with humanity posited as no more significant a development in nature than, say, African swallows. I see that as a logical error of interpreting insufficient evidence as a null result, and I suspect that the error was triggered by a reactionary approach to religion's nebulous "humans are divine" claims.

While humans obviously show more similarities to our ape cousins than divine beings, informed observers are increasingly seeing humanity as the most profound emergence in nature since abiogenesis and multicellular organisation.

[Steve3007]

Felix:

Natural selection of random variations doesn't account for speciation, for that you need actual mutation, so according to evolutionary theory humankind is indeed the result of a genetic "mistake."

The random variations which result in change within a species are created by mutations just as much as the random variations that result in speciation. The process by which speciation occurs is not fundamentally different from the rest of the process. The very concept of "species" is to some extent an arbitrary human-made dividing line. At least that's my understanding.

If you remove all the embellishments from evolutionary theory, you are left with the core idea that evolution is a blind process lazily bumbling along, which by sheer chance produced intelligent life. Why this should occur, why the evolutionary trend has been upwards, is not in the least explained by evolutionary doctrine.

In my view, nothing is explained in any scientific theory. It is simply described and predicted. The theory of evolution simply looks at the available evidence and proposes a possible mechanism to describe it. In the evolutionary description, increasing complexity comes about as an inevitable consequence of organisms diffusing outwards into the "space" or all possible organisms. If you think of a theory like Evolution as a game with rules, and then play the game, following those rules, then I think you find that this diffusion towards greater complexity inevitably follows from the rules.

I accept that in a small paragraph like the above it's not easy to explain what I mean by this "diffusing into organism space" metaphor, so you probably don't know what I'm on about. But I'll leave it there for now and perhaps talk about it more later.

Greta:

Many, me included, suspect scientists of a "Move away please. There's nothing here to see" approach as a reaction to theistic speculations.

Not just to theistic speculations but to any philosophical speculations. In physics, this is the attitude that is summarised by the "shut up and calculate" sound bite. I don't think that means you have to "move away". You don't have to do what other people say. It just means that some people aren't interested in philosophy as we often tend to think of it - as a search for some kind of understanding that goes beyond description and prediction.

It is begging credulity to suggest that all of life is fairly random when history suggests that chaos (not randomness, just ask Leo) is more an agent of change than a descriptor of the ever greater order found throughout the Earth's history, despite some interruptions.

I'm happy to accept that what appears to be genuine randomness is actually chaotic behaviour. If the movements of a chaotic pendulum are, within 20 minutes, affected by the gravitational attraction of a single raindrop a mile away in such a way that they would have been completely different if the raindrop wasn't there, then the pendulum's movement is for all intents and purposes random. And we could continue this conversation, as we have with Leo in the past.

But I don't think that addresses the objections that people like Felix, above, have to the evolutionary description of the development of life. Whether we say that the development of life is best described using concepts of "randomness" or "chaos", many people still see a kind of emptiness in that description. They seem to think that it renders life "meaningless" or "pointless". For some reason, which I honestly don't fully understand, many many people can only see a point to life if the model for its development involves some pre-existing "life" - i.e. a creator.

I think the issue is one of scale. The biosphere as a whole is a dauntingly large and complex thing and, as with all things, researchers have been forced to "chunk" nature in order to make a complex task more approachable. However, when one pulls back from testable chunking and human-centric thinking and considers the history of the biosphere as a whole over the last four billion years, there appears to be an organism going through metamorphosis, becoming ever more information-dense with centres of high organisation, and capable of reproducing itself in other environments.

In using the word "chunk" I think you're referring to reductionism. Yes, I agree that in considering life on Earth it is possible to reduce the reductionsim (as it were) and see the Earth as a system. There are pros and cons to every approach.

Of course, professional biologists need to be more careful than amateurs. It's fair to say that time scales and a lack of comparable biospheres mean that any assumptions made about the biosphere as a whole are necessarily speculative. However, it's not logical to claim that there is not a clear line of development in evolution - that evolution is a "bush" (Gould), with humanity posited as no more significant a development in nature than, say, African swallows. I see that as a logical error of interpreting insufficient evidence as a null result, and I suspect that the error was triggered by a reactionary approach to religion's nebulous "humans are divine" claims.

I agree that one shouldn't react to one extreme with the opposite extreme. It seems reasonably clear to me, given available evidence, that human beings are an extraordinary species.

While humans obviously show more similarities to our ape cousins than divine beings, informed observers are increasingly seeing humanity as the most profound emergence in nature since abiogenesis and multicellular organisation.

Increasingly? We've kind of always (rightly) seen ourselves as a bit special haven't we?

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals."

I guess you're saying that the pendulum swung away from this view of humanity as unique and is now swinging back again. Maybe. As I say, I think the lesson is that we have to try to ignore both extremes and simply see things as they appear to be.

[Rr6]

FI agree that one shouldn't react to one extreme with the opposite extreme. It seems reasonably clear to me, given available evidence, that human beings are an extraordinary species.Increasingly? We've kind of always (rightly) seen ourselves as a bit special haven't we?

Humans are most complex species, with human woman \**/ being the most complex.

All biologicals have the specialties, Humans specialty is ability to generalize concepts, and that stems from having most access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept.

http://www.panspermia.org/

http://www.panspermia.org/genesborn.htm

..."In cosmology, at least two groups now claim that the evidence (microwave background radiation) enables them to see beyond (before) the big bang (2). We suggest that an analogous phenomenon may be possible in biology. Here David and Alm show that many genes were available at the very beginning of life on Earth, and that many more genes apparently preceded the earthly advent of the features they encode. Other studies provide corroborating data. Could all of this be evidence for life older than Earth? We think so."....

r6

[Felix]

Steve3007: If you think of a theory like Evolution as a game with rules, and then play the game, following those rules, then I think you find that this diffusion towards greater complexity inevitably follows from the rules.

It can't be considered a game. A game has a goal and of course players who compete for it. The rules of the game dictate how the game is to be played. Evolutionary theory states that there is no goal and there are no players. If it's a simple game of survival - which is all that evolutionary theory says it is - than "diffusion towards greater complexity" will certainly not follow from it. In fact the reverse is true, the simplest micro-organisms will win that game. Some of them are virtually immortal.

For some reason, which I honestly don't fully understand, many many people can only see a point to life if the model for its development involves some pre-existing "life" - i.e. a creator.

That's not my position, my point is that consciousness is fundamental to life and it impels evolution.

Rr6, I can buy the panspermia theory however it just dodges the question of how life began.

[Sy Borg]

It is begging credulity to suggest that all of life is fairly random when history suggests that chaos (not randomness, just ask Leo) is more an agent of change than a descriptor of the ever greater order found throughout the Earth's history, despite some interruptions.

I'm happy to accept that what appears to be genuine randomness is actually chaotic behaviour ...

But I don't think that addresses the objections that people like Felix, above, have to the evolutionary description of the development of life. Whether we say that the development of life is best described using concepts of "randomness" or "chaos", many people still see a kind of emptiness in that description. They seem to think that it renders life "meaningless" or "pointless". For some reason, which I honestly don't fully understand, many many people can only see a point to life if the model for its development involves some pre-existing "life" - i.e. a creator.

My bad here. Chaos vs randomness was a tangential point. The larger point was that chaos has a relationship with morphological change akin to, say, thermodynamics and personality. Figuratively, the cogs are not the point of the machine.

The "machine" of life wants to grow and expand, either within itself or via reproduction. Of course this may be an observer effect over time as the expanding universe could be an observer effect over spacetime. If, however, we accept that which is apparent we are still left with a pointless exercise - growth for growth's sake (a notion the polity appears to blindly embrace).

On the other hand, if we consider life to be a matter of longer term development - the eventual transformation of inorganic material into entities ever more capable of intelligence, moral awareness, empathy and empowerment in all areas then this suggests a potential future where life forms would be godlike/saintlike to our perspective. For me, being a link in the chain towards such a possibility is inherently meaningful.

I also enjoy the irony of rocks and other inorganic matter going on this long journey to become ever more volatile and sentient. Then the very most volatile and sentient species so far decides that the best way to live is to switch off those highly evolved minds in deep mediation and Zen states, effectively trying to be more rocklike . It's as though we crave geology's peace and quiet in a manner akin to a worried older child reverting to the dummy for comfort during challenging times. Touching base with our roots?

I think the issue is one of scale. The biosphere as a whole is a dauntingly large and complex thing and, as with all things, researchers have been forced to "chunk" nature in order to make a complex task more approachable. However, when one pulls back from testable chunking and human-centric thinking and considers the history of the biosphere as a whole over the last four billion years, there appears to be an organism going through metamorphosis, becoming ever more information-dense with centres of high organisation, and capable of reproducing itself in other environments.

In using the word "chunk" I think you're referring to reductionism. Yes, I agree that in considering life on Earth it is possible to reduce the reductionsim (as it were) and see the Earth as a system. There are pros and cons to every approach.

The "chunking" includes reductionism, but is broader. Researchers thoroughly study all range of emergent systems but the total system of the Earth - nature and humans together as a cohesive, rather than antagonistic, system - seems to be less considered.

[Steve3007]

Felix:

It can't be considered a game. A game has a goal and of course players who compete for it. The rules of the game dictate how the game is to be played. Evolutionary theory states that there is no goal and there are no players. If it's a simple game of survival - which is all that evolutionary theory says it is - than "diffusion towards greater complexity" will certainly not follow from it. In fact the reverse is true, the simplest micro-organisms will win that game. Some of them are virtually immortal.

Yes, calling it a game was probably misleading. The only features of a game that I was think of were (1) rules and (2) a collection of stuff which is acted on by those rules and whose state thereby changes over time. By which I mean the "rules" of Nature and the stuff we're made of. We could speculate as to the origin of those rules and that stuff - whether they need to be considered to have an origin and, if so, if that origin could be considered to be a creator. We could imagine a creator who places all the stuff in a particular initial state, sets up some rules that govern how that state will change over time and then says "go", and we could talk about whether concepts such as chaos theory allow such a notion to make sense. But I think that's a somewhat separate issue.

So I'm not thinking of any kind of "game of survival". The concept of survival does not feature in the rules I'm thinking of. The rules are the laws of physics and chemistry. It's certainly not entirely clear (at least not yet) how a collection of simple molecules "obeying" the laws of physics and chemistry might result in the emergence of a self-replicating molecule. But once a self-replicating molecule emerges, and if that replication process is close to, but not exactly equal to, 100% reliable, then it seems that various aspects of the theory of Evolution naturally emerge from the laws of physics and chemistry.

That process of imperfect self-replication, governed by the rules of physics and chemistry, inevitably leads to a spreading out into complexity. It doesn't mean that simpler self-replicators become extinct at the expense of more complex ones. It just means that the diversity increases. That's why I think the "diffusion" metaphor is quite a good one. Diffusion (of a gas, for example) doesn't mean that the gas moves from one place to another, leaving a vacuum behind it. It simply means that if the gas starts in a particular small volume in space it will, over time, occupy a larger volume. Likewise with this concept of "organism space". An often-used concept in physics is a "space" in which each degree of freedom in a physical system is represented by a dimension. The state of that system at any given time is then represented by a single point in this notional multi-dimensional space. In the case of systems of particles it's sometimes called "phase space".

The first, simple self-replicating molecule occupies one small point in organism space - the space in which every conceivable self-replicating organism is represented by a single point. From this state of maximum simplicity, imperfect self-replication, following the laws of physics and chemistry, inevitably results in the gradual spreading out into adjacent points. Increasing complexity. You start with the simplest possible organisms and nothing else. After a few billion years you still have the simplest possible organisms, plus lots of other interesting thing.

Again, no doubt, not very well described.

That's not my position, my point is that consciousness is fundamental to life and it impels evolution.

Consciousness in what sense? Are you referring to the consciousness of the living things themselves (us)? Or the consciousness of something that created them/us? Or both? Or something else?

-- Updated Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:11 am to add the following --

Greta:

My bad here. Chaos vs randomness was a tangential point. The larger point was that chaos has a relationship with morphological change akin to, say, thermodynamics and personality. Figuratively, the cogs are not the point of the machine.

I take this to mean something like - the whole is more than the sum of its parts?

The "machine" of life wants to grow and expand, either within itself or via reproduction. Of course this may be an observer effect over time as the expanding universe could be an observer effect over spacetime. If, however, we accept that which is apparent we are still left with a pointless exercise - growth for growth's sake (a notion the polity appears to blindly embrace).

This is where this concept of "point" and "pointless" comes in. It's interesting that we want there to be a point. Science, in the guise of the laws of physics/chemistry emerging into the laws of evolution, simply describes this process of growth to more complex life forms. Mere description is clearly not enough for us.

On the other hand, if we consider life to be a matter of longer term development - the eventual transformation of inorganic material into entities ever more capable of intelligence, moral awareness, empathy and empowerment in all areas then this suggests a potential future where life forms would be godlike/saintlike to our perspective. For me, being a link in the chain towards such a possibility is inherently meaningful.

Yes, as a human being myself I can see how ideas of the meaningfulness of our lives can come from such thoughts. The question is: do we allow that desire for meaningfulness to colour our view of what kinds of theories best describe the world around us? Or do we treat science as simply the description which comes before any possible search for meaning? I'm not suggesting a "yes" or "no" answer to that question. Just leaving it open for now.

I also enjoy the irony of rocks and other inorganic matter going on this long journey to become ever more volatile and sentient. Then the very most volatile and sentient species so far decides that the best way to live is to switch off those highly evolved minds in deep mediation and Zen states, effectively trying to be more rocklike . It's as though we crave geology's peace and quiet in a manner akin to a worried older child reverting to the dummy for comfort during challenging times. Touching base with our roots?

Yes, getting back to our rocky roots. Hardly surprising that we'd want to do that. Thinking hurts!

The "chunking" includes reductionism, but is broader. Researchers thoroughly study all range of emergent systems but the total system of the Earth - nature and humans together as a cohesive, rather than antagonistic, system - seems to be less considered.

It has been considered to at least some extent though, hasn't it? The Gaia hypothesis, and so on?

It's just that the larger the system one is considering the more the patterns and rules we spot become general rules of thumb - broad overarching principles with exceptions. Inevitably, we tend to have a choice between big, fuzzy, blurry picture and small, detailed, sharply focuses picture. There's a role for both, no doubt.

[Rr6]

It's just that the larger the system one is considering the more the patterns and rules we spot become general rules of thumb - broad overarching principles with exceptions. Inevitably, we tend to have a choice between big, fuzzy, blurry picture and small, detailed, sharply focuses picture. There's a role for both, no doubt.

The finite set of cosmic laws/principles are the broadest set and inherently have no 'exceptions'.

No exceptions and do not contradict any other cosmic laws/principles. True everywhere and everywhen, ergo the label cosmic law/principle.

Ex there exists only 5 metaphysical-1/conceptual, and in occupied space reality, possible regular polyhedra of Universe.

The first two subsets of metaphyiscal-1, mind/intellect/concept is;

..1a} absolute truths,

...1b} relative truths ergo false in some circumstances.

r6

[Felix]

Felix: my point is that consciousness is fundamental to life and it impels evolution.

Steve3007: Consciousness in what sense? Are you referring to the consciousness of the living things themselves

Yes, I suspect all life is conscious to some degree, and can thereby respond and adapt to their environment, eventually adapting it to suit their needs. We see this on all levels, from bacteria on up to mammals - cytotoxins, bird's nests, Donald Trump's shoes, etc.

Rr6: 1a} absolute truths

Do you think humankind is capable of recognizing these?

[Sy Borg]

The "machine" of life wants to grow and expand, either within itself or via reproduction. Of course this may be an observer effect over time as the expanding universe could be an observer effect over spacetime. If, however, we accept that which is apparent we are still left with a pointless exercise - growth for growth's sake (a notion the polity appears to blindly embrace).

This is where this concept of "point" and "pointless" comes in. It's interesting that we want there to be a point. Science, in the guise of the laws of physics/chemistry emerging into the laws of evolution, simply describes this process of growth to more complex life forms. Mere description is clearly not enough for us.

It's fundamental. The great question: what is the meaning of life? We are all intrinsically motivated by emotion. People who suffer brain damage that significantly limits their emotional response become unmotivated afterwards.

On the other hand, if we consider life to be a matter of longer term development - the eventual transformation of inorganic material into entities ever more capable of intelligence, moral awareness, empathy and empowerment in all areas then this suggests a potential future where life forms would be godlike/saintlike to our perspective. For me, being a link in the chain towards such a possibility is inherently meaningful.

Yes, as a human being myself I can see how ideas of the meaningfulness of our lives can come from such thoughts. The question is: do we allow that desire for meaningfulness to colour our view of what kinds of theories best describe the world around us? Or do we treat science as simply the description which comes before any possible search for meaning? I'm not suggesting a "yes" or "no" answer to that question. Just leaving it open for now.

Our collective future, of course, is far from guaranteed but the trends are clear. Until we have space defence capabilities a rogue object in space could wipe us out at any time. Life is never guaranteed, although I suspect that evolution of highly advanced life somewhere in universe would seem inevitable. I think the "Great Filter" is a flawed solution to the Fermi Paradox because not all life will start out with equal amount of relative resources or operate with the same skill. Intelligent life with luck, with a history of better decision-making, living on a more bountiful planet than Earth would seem a good chance to learn how to modernise sustainably and then expand their civilisations to other planets and moons.

Researchers thoroughly study all range of emergent systems but the total system of the Earth - nature and humans together as a cohesive, rather than antagonistic, system - seems to be less considered.

It has been considered to at least some extent though, hasn't it? The Gaia hypothesis, and so on?

It's just that the larger the system one is considering the more the patterns and rules we spot become general rules of thumb - broad overarching principles with exceptions. Inevitably, we tend to have a choice between big, fuzzy, blurry picture and small, detailed, sharply focuses picture. There's a role for both, no doubt.

Proponents of the Gaia hypothesis don't tend to see humans as part of the Earth, but antagonistic to it. They tend to not consider the broader system IMO.

I think there's a cost at this seeming self-blindness of humanity, seeing itself as free, empowered agents rather than processes within a larger system. The cost is peace of mind. For practical purposes, chunking will yield the most useful results. It's also important to remember that, while we play a role in this larger system, it does not mean the larger system will treat most of us as anything other than resources. That is, there is intrinsic tension and conflict of interest between individuals and larger systems; the balance between benefits and restriction is constantly under question, a dynamic graphically illustrated in the attitude towards government of many US Americans today.

Again, I refer to the analogy between humanity's activities on this metamorphosing planet and how imaginal discs and cells operate in metamorphosing insects. The imaginal discs actively destroy many of the other cells in the insect pupa. The animal's immune system initially attacks the cells, seeing them as an invading threat. In time, though, the insides of the pupa are reduced to mush, which then acts as resources for the imaginal cells that use those resources to grow into the structures of the adult form.

So this inherently destructive process ultimately works to create an entity with more potentials than the larval form, whose focus was furious consumption ("Jobs and growth!", cry the conservative politicians). The dynamics are all familiar, all business as usual for nature, but on a scale that directly affects us, especially the poor and middle class, and that affects the way we think about it.