Ah, moving the goalposts I see. I consider that more than a bit childish.
If you’re not concerned with it, don’t post about it. The title of this thread is “Evolution and Purpose” ffs. You sure are posting a lot about a topic that’s more than a bit childish.
Until you understand “Purpose” and its concepts, what you say regarding Evolution’s relationship to it, is meaningless.
Purpose is derived (as FC put it) by the “course”/“direction”. The claim that evolution has no direction, is just silly.
In a word - “Cognition”; the preformed image of the goal being sought… an essential element to “Consciousness”; the awareness of ones situation (hence ontological imagery).
I can understand this. I am not sure what it does for us, but I am not sure what the original context was for this idea in this thread. Still, neutral traits, it seems to me, could catch on, through the vagaries of chance.
I am still not clear what the terms teleology and purpose refer to at all in a determinist universe. IOW it seems to me that even human ‘agents’ are simply unfolding, inevitable subprocessed within the evolutionary whole of nature and lack these qualites also.
Double IOW it is often presented as a differentiation. No, evolution - as opposed, implicity to actions or to processes set up by agents like humans - is not teleological, does not show purpose. But I don’t see any room for purpose at all, anywhere in that paradigm. There could be the purpose quale, but that’s about it. The process of evolution is not different from anything else in its lack of purpose including us or our actions.
In a strictly deterministic perspective, a “purpose” is a “qualified” or “filtered” direction. The object proceeds only conditionally in one direction or another by internally filtering/qualifying rather than merely whatever direction it happened to be facing. That is somewhat FC’s “Value-Ontology” perspective (“value”=goal).
I can almost understand that language, I just think the term purpose would be misleading. The organism is propelled forward by the arrangement of its molecules. This happens to lead to certain outcomes that may benefit the organism, but there are no purposes, just as there are none in evolution. Note: going on the premises of determinism and evolution. (or stochastic processes including evolution - since this is a combination of random or probablistic factors and certain kinds of biological machines ((iow allowing for indeterminism)))
Of course, people don’t typically think or speak in strictly deterministic/analytical terms.
Yes, but at some point the notion called “purpose” becomes real. That is the point that I am referring to. It becomes purpose when the entity preconcieves of the goal and qualifies its behavior based on that target.
A mechanical example would be a simple thermostat.
The thermostat has a prearranged target and a mechanical means to determine when it will turn on or off.
It senses the environment, but doesn’t merely react in a simple minded probabilistic manner.
It doesn’t react (turn anything on or off) until a condition is met.
Upon that internally set condition, it turns on or off.
Random probability doesn’t apply because by whatever means, it gained a conditional response mechanism.
When it comes to the concept of evolution, the issue is whether its behavior caused an increase in both its stability (survival) and its propagation (more people using/building such things).
Thus the simple thermometer can be said to be an evolutionary example of a purposeful endeavor. But not because of Man’s role in creating it so much as because of its own ability to pursue a purpose within itself and that behavior is amiable to Man (its environment).
It’s only natural for people to jump ahead and apply themes to things like this true or no.
Is it scienific to apply the idea of purpose? Doesn’t seem so, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Nothing can be “scientific” until a philosopher properly defines what it actually is.
From:
Mathematics Has Peaked:
“And actually the use of Mathematics would render the theory less correct and less precise since even if you could have all of the exact formulas and sequence of events that lead from Molecules to the First Cell to the End Result of a Man Brain, even if you had all of the Mathematics precisely correct and such (something I doubt possible), it would be useless, it would be just a random case of formatting just one sequence of events to the utmost precision, but wouldn’t reveal anything at all with regards to the true nature of the sequence of events and namely that the events are totally casual, random, disconnected between each other, are not formattable at all, cannot be decoded in any logical way at all, and indeed mathematics hides the real nature of what is going on, falsifies reality by pretending that it abides to something that has Formulas or Repeatable Patterns when this is not the case at all, even if they are discovered in just that one case of natural evolution that we managed to decode, those formulas would not have any general meaning, any deeper meaning than being just casually applicable.”
Flannel Jesus
My posit is that advancement is the way of evolution, given enough time that one in a million chance is bound to happen ~ it doesn’t have to but its likely. When we say there are millions of evolutionary lines, we can also say there that the categories are more in their thousands.
DNA does not randomly exchange, each life-form eats, shits, drinks and fucks in some way, neurons make utility of their vehicle e.g. in experiments neurons can use machines, once attached they quickly adapt to the given vehicle. Utility is fundamental to evolution and I cant see how you can have that with no teleology, the two concepts are deeply associated with one another.
I think we could define “advancement” concerning evolution in terms of an increase in survivability or stability. Propagation is merely one of the means to enhance survivability via the conversion of the environment. Propagation also creates a species, but that is a secondary aberrant effect and defensive mechanism, not the originating pursuit or goal. Once a species has been formed, the species itself “advances” in evolution by becoming more talented toward its own survivability. The purpose/aim within the individual is not the same as the purpose/aim within the species, but merely related.
James S Saint: I think we could define “advancement” concerning evolution in terms of an increase in survivability or stability.
K: umm, closer, but not quite because of the word “advancement”. A much better word is efficient. through inherited traits,
in the mating process, we can become more efficient which does increase our survivability in a given environment, but the
process is still random, the uniting of the the male DNA and the female DNA.
JS: Propagation is merely one of the means to enhance survivability via the conversion of the environment.
K: one of the means? name another?
J: Propagation also creates a species, but that is a secondary aberrant effect and defensive mechanism, not the originating pursuit or goal.
K: I have no idea what this means.
J: once a species has been formed, the species itself “advances” in evolution by becoming more talented toward its own survivability. The purpose/aim within the individual is not the same as the purpose/aim within the species, but merely related.:
K: Now if you are trying to say more efficient? I might be able to go with you on this, but “advances”, no. I am also not so sure about the
word “talented”. It implies something that isn’t there.
Kropotkin
By using the term “efficient”, you are presuming that the only purpose of an entity is propagation.
Isn’t that a bit narrow?
Who’s “purpose” would that serve? The species itself? A species has no consciousness with which to form a purpose (discounting the government).
When we decide that propagation of a species is “good for it”, it is WE who are projecting purpose upon it as though it was a willful entity.
With an individual, we need not project such purpose because that individual would already have inbuilt pursuits.
Emm… very many… hardening or adapting of the skin, gaining mobility, communication, intelligence,…
It means that cells reproduce by a mechanism that is an inherent defense of the cells longevity - surrounding itself with more of itself. From that process, a body is created that discovers an inherent limit. Due to that limit, still pursuing the same defense, the body spawns so as to continue surrounding itself with itself as a natural defense mechanism. The end result is a species.
The species wasn’t “in the beginning”. Nor was it ever an intent or purpose. It merely became a means for the individual to protect itself. The inherent evolutionary goal has always been self-protection, not species protection.
“talent” means capability to do something to its own benefit.
I find your preference for the word “efficient” to be even more of what you seem to abhor.
The word “efficient” has no meaning at all until AFTER a goal of some kind is presumed.
How is that different than “advanced”?
If we “declare” that the goal is survival when referring to evolutionary directions, then either word would work. But we have to declare a forward from a backward, “evolve” vs “de-evolve”.
And absolutely nothing is ever random. True randomness doesn’t exist - anywhere.
It seems to me, purpose would simply be a quale. A motion detector starts to think it has a purpose when it shifts a camera over to where there was movement and zooms in. But there was simply a reaction to stimuli.
Funny I gave my example as a counterargument and the device I chose was even simpler than the one you are using as a pro argument. We will likely have to agree to disagree. I can’t apply purpose to these things. Not in a determinist universe.
If you deconstruct and analyze sufficiently, ALL words tend to connotate something different than the detailed analysis.
And if you stop using all such words, you would have no language at all.
In physics, for example, they say that “gravity causes attraction of masses”. Analyze it deep enough and you find that there is no actual “attraction” going on at all. There is no pushing or pulling, “forces”. What they observe and experience as a “force” is actually merely a migration gaining speed. But if you go trying to change every word because it implied something different than what is actually there, almost all of physics and Science would no longer be able to speak of anything. It is called being “pedantic”.
The concern in evolution isn’t so much the word “purpose” but rather the extended connotation that there was cognitive intent associated with that word. I agree that there is no cognitive intent and thus no purpose of that type. But I disagree with the notion that by changing the language enough, everything can be understood properly. The truth is that when you change the language, you merely create a different set of connotations that are just as misleading, merely in a different direction.
It is easier to merely qualify the usage, “in evolution, when we say ‘purpose’, we mean inherent direction, not cognitive intent.” And let morons be morons. Changing our language isn’t going to change our intelligence enough to bother with.
James S Saint: I think we could define “advancement” concerning evolution in terms of an increase in survivability or stability.
K: umm, closer, but not quite because of the word “advancement”. A much better word is efficient. through inherited traits,
in the mating process, we can become more efficient which does increase our survivability in a given environment, but the
process is still random, the uniting of the the male DNA and the female DNA."
James: By using the term “efficient”, you are presuming that the only purpose of an entity is propagation.
Isn’t that a bit narrow?"
K: and we have a winner. the only purpose of an entity is propagation. that is the name of the game. species propagate
and that’s it. If we say it is anything but that, it is humans trying to justify their existence in life or humans transferring their
needs on to other species. WE breed, species breed, that is the full extent of purpose you will find in life.
Who’s “purpose” would that serve? The species itself? A species has no consciousness with which to form a purpose (discounting the government).
When we decide that propagation of a species is “good for it”, it is WE who are projecting purpose upon it as though it was a willful entity.
With an individual, we need not project such purpose because that individual would already have inbuilt pursuits.
K: Once again there is no purpose outside of life continuing on and the species going on. This is the unspoken truth of life.
we exist only to mate and continue on the species just as every other species has since time began. 3000 years of philosophy, religion,
thinking, praying, eating drinking and fucking, leads to one inescapable truth, we live to breed and continue on the species.
JS: Propagation is merely one of the means to enhance survivability via the conversion of the environment.
K: one of the means? name another?
J: Emm… very many… hardening or adapting of the skin, gaining mobility, communication, intelligence,…
K: every example you gave is a function of evolution, the transmission of traits that allow members of a species
to adapt better to an environment. I cannot by myself by any means known to me gain intelligence, hardening of skin,
increase mobility, (in fact as I have aged, I have lost mobility). I am hard of hearing (by birth) I can hear because
of an hearing aid, not by any means I can create by myself.
J: Propagation also creates a species, but that is a secondary aberrant effect and defensive mechanism, not the originating pursuit or goal.
K: I have no idea what this means. "
J: It means that cells reproduce by a mechanism that is an inherent defense of the cells longevity - surrounding itself with more of itself. From that process, a body is created that discovers an inherent limit. Due to that limit, still pursuing the same defense, the body spawns so as to continue surrounding itself with itself as a natural defense mechanism. The end result is a species.
K: after some thought, I believe that this defense you speak of, is really a defense of the propagation needs, not for itself. everything is
about the propagation, the continuation of the species and defense is part of that.
J: The species wasn’t “in the beginning”. Nor was it ever an intent or purpose. It merely became a means for the individual to protect itself. The inherent evolutionary goal has always been self-protection, not species protection.
K: self protection for propagation purpose, nothing more."
J: once a species has been formed, the species itself “advances” in evolution by becoming more talented toward its own survivability. The purpose/aim within the individual is not the same as the purpose/aim within the species, but merely related.:
K: Now if you are trying to say more efficient? I might be able to go with you on this, but “advances”, no. I am also not so sure about the
word “talented”. It implies something that isn’t there.
J: “talent” means capability to do something to its own benefit.
I find your preference for the word “efficient” to be even more of what you seem to abhor.
The word “efficient” has no meaning at all until AFTER a goal of some kind is presumed.
How is that different than “advanced”?
K: I don’t abhor anything, except maybe young republicans. efficiency is actually the best term, because being efficient
in gathering food or propagation is the goal of the individual member of any species.
J: If we “declare” that the goal is survival when referring to evolutionary directions, then either word would work. But we have to declare a forward from a backward, “evolve” vs “de-evolve”.
K: the goal is survival of the species. evolution doesn’t suggest a forward, just a change.
J: And absolutely nothing is ever random. True randomness doesn’t exist - anywhere."
K: given we are in the early stages of quantum physics, I won’t go that far.
Kropotkin
Wait, let me get this straight,
You, Hitler, Stalin, Lennon, Mao Zedong, and the other socialist/communists seriously believe that life itself belongs exclusively and entirely to the mindless, non-sentient, “randomly” driven entity that we call a “species” and not at all to the actual sentient beings that make up that entity? All these centuries, you guys seriously never got past that notion?
Granted there is a strong tie between evolution and government control because the notion of mindless propagation would require that control be taken away from everything and everyone but an elitist, presumed wiser than wise government, but if your people are no brighter than to think that life serves only such a mindless purpose as a species propagation, a mechanized folly of semi-random events floating through time, I can’t imagine how anyone ever thought they were the slightest bit wise.
I can certainly understand the wars against such a fatalistic mindless religion.
No wonder you hate thinking philosophers.
“self protection for propagation purpose, nothing more.”
The idea that an entity exists solely to propagate is about as naive as any philosophy I have ever heard and so very easily proven irrational (well, to a rational person that is).
This totally non-sentient, non-thinking, “purposeless” entity is the lord and master that you live to serve?
Are you serious?!? 
To Lane’s point, thing evolve together. When something evolves as part of a system, our tendency to see it as a discrete entity is confounded. So in this context talking about “purpose” is talking about relationships. In other words, we can talk about the evolution of the human heart, but it makes no sense to do so without also talking about the evolution of human beings in all of their complexity. A human heart doesn’t evolve in a vaccuum; it has a function relative to a system that it is part of. But I think it’s the egoistic mind’s inherent bias to say that the heart is there to support the mind (or soul, or ego, or whatever). If the heart and mind evolve together, then it can as easily be said, if we try to be objective about it, that the purpose of the mind is to ensure the continued existence of the heart.
So I do think he’s talking about “a conception of purpose that doesn’t depend on intentions or goals”, as our typical way of understanding “intentions or goals” is to see ourselves (or whatever entity has such an intention or goal) as more or less separate from the context upon which we inflict our designs. I don’t control my heart, and my heart doesn’t control me. Yet we are bound together (in an abstract or historic sense, which is what makes sense when discussing evolution - obviously particular people can get heart transplants). At the same time, I think it might get dodgy when we commit too strongly to the idea that evolution is a “mindless process”, or that there is no room at all for teleological thinking in evolutionary theory. For instance, if it makes sense to talk about the purpose of entities because they are part of coevolved systems, and if each entity in a system is internally heterogeneous and each system is an open one, then can’t we talk about any system as an entity and any entity as a system? Teleology in the big sense doesn’t have to be about an external God, it can be about complete interdependence - that there is no escape from relationship.
Just some thoughts. I don’t actually know what I’m talking about.
James S Saint: Wait, let me get this straight,
You, Hitler, Stalin, Lennon, Mao Zedong, and the other socialist/communists seriously believe that life itself belongs exclusively and entirely to the mindless, non-sentient, “randomly” driven entity that we call a “species” and not at all to the actual sentient beings that make up that entity? All these centuries, you guys seriously never got past that notion?
K: I am not sure John lennon of the Beatles was a true communist but he might have been, as for the rest, I am impressed you included me
with those guys because I am more an anarchist type of guy, Hence the name Kropotkin. You have to separate out what they believe and what i
believe. Hitler, stalin, Lenin, Mao, are all type of dictatorships and aren’t really my style. They didn’t care about people, they cared about power and
not much else. I have a different agenda and that we shall discuss in a bit.
J: Granted there is a strong tie between evolution and government control because the notion of mindless propagation would require that control be taken away from everything and everyone but an elitist, presumed wiser than wise government, but if your people are no brighter than to think that life serves only such a mindless purpose as a species propagation, a mechanized folly of semi-random events floating through time, I can’t imagine how anyone ever thought they were the slightest bit wise.
K: I don’t consider them wise or smart or worth paying attention too, they were power driven psychopaths.
J: I can certainly understand the wars against such a fatalistic mindless religion.
No wonder you hate thinking philosophers.
K: I have read most major and quite a few minor philosophers in my many years of reading philosophers.
When I was young, I was a nietzschean as young man often are, but age cured me of that.
If I follow anyone these days, its hume.
J: self protection for propagation purpose, nothing more."[/i]
The idea that an entity exists solely to propagate is about as naive as any philosophy I have ever heard and so very easily proven irrational (well, to a rational person that is). This totally non-sentient, non-thinking, “purposeless” entity is the lord and master that you live to serve?
K: I have decided to create a seperate post for what I personally believe to continue the line of this post.
Kropotkin
Sorry, another brain-slip, I meant “Lenin”, but you knew that.
You say that they didn’t care about people, but by your philosophy, neither do you.
You have said that the ONLY purpose for people is to serve the mindless species.
The end result of that is not only that individuals don’t matter, only the species itself, but after some well placed science, homosapian no longer exists at all because as Moses put it, you would be worshiping an “idle” - a fixed mechanism or false highest priority, or “false god”. The consequences of which are natural annihilation.
Yet other than not being a dictator, you are one of them. And seeing how you have no idea of the consequences of such a ridiculous worship, I suspect you shouldn’t be paid attention to either.
I can believe that. Hume was a somewhat mindless putz, as philosophers go.