I have problems with some ideas of evolution also. The linear progression of adaptation potential, placing humans at the top, neglects the facts that bacteria were the first Earth life forms for 2 billion years, that they remain the predominant life form this instant and that they can survive a nuclear winter. That ought to take some wind out of the sails of humans who think we are “the crown of creation” or at least persuade us that God cares more for bacteria than He does for humans! If all other life forms on Earth were destroyed, bacteria would persist and could start the whole thing over. Hard-wired organisms do seem to have the survival advantage! Perhaps if some of this human hubris could at least be deflated we could comprehend our place in the interchanges of matter and energy, of organic and inorganic chemical activity, of mind and matter.
Potential in any form may allow “free will”. I think the organism does have a say in what happens to it, at least the organism that has developed a brain.
Actually, to state that bacteria were ‘first’ is already a major teleological problem.
There are several people who suggest that eukaryotes evolved first and that procaryotes lost the nucleus since it was inefficient.
I think that is totally bullshit, but it has been suggested.
But, it is worth noting that archaea, the least derived branch on the tree of life are much more closely related to Eukaryotes (and by extension, us) than they are to bacteria.
Now, as to your question asking about the relationship between philosophy and psychology, I tend to think that it is similar to the relationship between religion and science.
Philosophy is a proto-psychology that, in the face of a new technique that was quickly kicking it out of its normal niche, shifted to a new specialty that psychology couldn’t touch (such as epistomology, ontology, ect.) Similar to the shift that religion experienced as it ceased to be the best way to explain the world, and instead emphasized its role as a vehicle for morality, which science could not adequately perform.
Xunzian,
Adherents to religious and scientific ideals have always been at each other’s throats. Kant couldn’t effectively moderate between the two. Neither could Mary Baker Eddy. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I still believe there is a common ground in the biology to psychology to philosophy natural human development. I’ve often wondered how Kant would have reacted had he been aware of ideas of Darwin and Mendel, of Einstein and Heisenberg?
h.d.,
That’s a beautiful avatar.
S.,
You look nothing like Rasputin!
To state that bacteria were first is not a teleological problem if one believes in the genetic continuum. First organisms had to make distinctions among external chemicals in order to take in nuitritives. They also had to retain information about what is fuel so that their every adaptational stance would not be a lottery or shot in the dark or continual trial and error experimentation. The organism’s internal mechanisms for making such distinctions and for retaining accurate information combine as the origin of mind.
Given that natural theology is a far better precursor to modern (biological) science than natural philosophy, I will have to disagree that religion and science have always been at each other’s throats. Many early scientists were religious, indeed, many were members of the clergy! They felt that by understanding God’s Creation they could better understand God. Things only got sticky once they started to figure out that the way Creation works didn’t seem to square with what their text said.
A genetic continuum is also a teleological corruption.
Even that picture shows a certain degree of teleological corruption based on the way it is organised, but it is worth noting that:
a) Many bacteria are more ‘derived’ from the LUCA than H. sapiens.
b) Since the nature of the LUCA is unknown, equating it with a bacterium is incorrect. It definately had aspects of both archaea and bacteria (possibly Eukarya? I think that is a load of crock, but some crazy virologists are harping on about it).
Xunzian,
Your posts always prompt alternative considerations, which is what a good post should do. Thanks for the organic map.
About the religion vs science issue, I was leaning more to what happened to Galileo than whether or not he was a religious person. I do know that the first scientists were religious. Even later ones were as in the case of Einstein who noted that he was not questioning God’s existence but merely wanting to know how God did things.
The organic development map you provided still shows a continuum of RNA effects regardless of what the prototypical organisms are called or which evolved into which. The complex proteins are the constant in this equation.
Granted, but I am unconvinced that we can talk in terms of complexity here, as opposed to merely ‘different’.
Methanogens can use carbon monoxide as a carbon source, but carbon monoxide kills us dead. Does that make methanogens ‘better’ than us, or merely different? Similarly look at eusocial insects – is their society ‘better’ than ours?
I agree that the idea of ‘learning’ is just a new strategy for how to deal with the world. I always sort of thought that human intelligence works along the same lines of actin. Actin in a structural protein in eukaryotic cells. Now, since the structures that actin forms are always going through a cycle of construction and catastrophe, the formation of actin polymers needs to be fast. How does the cell accomplish this? Remember Le Chatelier’s principle (If any change is imposed on a system that is in equilibrium then the system tends to adjust to a new equilibrium counteracting the change)? So, how do you force a quick change? By heavily adding to one side of the equation. If you have a lot of free actin (well in excess of what is required) it forces the equilibrium to make lots of polymerized actin, so that when it needs to make a lot of new structures, it can with great ease.
I think our mind pretty much works on the same principle. We have intelligence well beyond what is required for day-to-day living so that on those occasions when we really need to make an important, split second choice, we have the power to do that.
Xunzian,
The RNA line continues through all changes and retains the information of what it is and what it does. Complexity and difference are two names for the same thing seen from different perspectives, i.e., those of evolving information and those of static information. To evolve means to retain what works and build on it. To be different is to envisage a disconnect among organic/inorganic relationships. But I’m interpreting different to mean wholly other.
Putting aside the entire Darwinian argument, one must realize that the development of complex human anatomies from a single fertilized egg is evidence of genetic information as activity. Is this purpose? Do stem cells show purpose? Is it possible to regard the DNA activity of producing viable, adaptational structures as anything other than purpose?
To imply that a genetic program is totally deterministic is to argue against possibility and potential. These are the directions of organic development.
Bacteria, for example, get around problems they face by having very short generation times and reproducing like crazy. Any problem they encounter can be overcome through reproduction-reproduction-reproduction.
Humans represent the other extreme of problem solving – we have very long lifespans and a memory. We can learn new things and remember past solutions, integrating them in novel ways to overcome difficulties.
But to me the difference is that of getting somewhere by plane and by car. You have little control over the plane, but you get to your destination quite quickly. You have a certain amount of control when you are driving your car, but you still end up at the same place as the plane.
Xunzian,
Way cool!!! I’ll have to think about your yes and no response for awhile. Meanwhile, I’d really like your ideas in my complementary thread about the reality of rocks. Thanks for your ideas!
When I first dicovered E. O. Wilson via his Book "Sociobiology’, I was appalled. It took me some time to understand where this reputable biologist was coming from. Other writings on insect societies and, especially “Concilience”, endeared me to his thoughts.
Case in point-- a swarm of bees discover a fertile patch of clover. When they return to the hive, the communicate the where and what of their discovery by performing a dance and exuding pheremones. What is neat about bees and other hard-wired organisms is that they cannot lie, trick or imagine. The communication depends first on the fact that individual bees can have a real take on a thing that is external to their senses. It depends, second, on the fact that information is transferable from one bee to another. Third, the communication cannot be said to be without purpose. In short, communication without purpose is impossible and a distinction between pupose and direction is tenuous at best.
I think that purpose and direction are and ought be viewed as very seperate ideas. The biggest difference that I can see between them is that purpose can be contained within the object itself, whereas direction cannot.
So, if we take nature to be ‘self-so’, then it has contained its purpose within itself while divorcing itself from any sort of ‘direction’.
For your bees, the purpose is for them to eat. However, will they eat? It seems to me that under the system that you have set up, they will – but that might not be the case. By the time they arrive, the conditions could have changed rendering that information useless. So, they had a ‘purpose’ which was to alert each other of the source of food, but the eventual goal is distinct from said purpose.
Also, I found this collection of essays (largely because it has an exerpt from one of Tu’s essays), which I am reading through and I think is very relevant to the discussion: http://www.cts.cuni.cz/conf98/Procee-x.htm#Tu
Xunzian,
Thanks much for your good scholarship. I respect the oriental view, however, there is nothing in anything I’ve said that would support final ends, ultimate conclusions or any such mental ultimatums.
The words often used in descriptions of goal-oriented behavior are function, direction and purpose. All of these words imply intention in fulfilling an expectation. A well-built machine is one that functions properly as expected. To say that the machine was not built for the pupose of functioning properly is preposterous, as it is to say that its construction was devoid of intention on the part of its constructor. Intention cannot be ascribed to a machine unless, as in the case of living organisms, the structure also constructs.
Direction is a narrowing of focus, like putting blinders on a horse. To move in one direction rather than in another is intentional if goal-oriented.
The confusion perpetrated by seeing goal descriptions as mutually exclusive or as one negating the meanings of the others comes from overlooking the fact that, unless there are some identities of meaning among these words, none of them apply to goal-oriented behavior.
In short, one can apply to DNA constructions of organisms such descriptions as functional, directional and purposeful in meaningful ways without any of these descriptions being necessary or sufficient rebuttals of goal oriented behavior. The opposite of these applications would entail random, fortuitous, lottery or billiard mechanical explanations of experienced human reality, a bleak view devoid of free will and human creativity implicit in organic potentiality. Deprive us of any sense of purpose and we wither and die.
True, but the only purpose I can see for a biological machine is to reproduce. The reproductive cycle is almost always represented as a circular process. Now, since we’re discussing much of this over evolutionary time, this circle becomes a very tightly wound helix that branches off into all sorts of curly-ques . . . but the fundamental goal, heck, even the fundamental method of getting the job done, hasn’t really changed since the advent of cellular life.
Different strategies, same end ‘purpose’, but I’m guessing that fecundity as a driving principle isn’t what you mean by ‘purpose’?
Xunzian,
I will agree with your uses of fecundity and optimization if either entails no final end of a process of awareness. I really don’t like the general concept of a goal as ultimately attainable in a biological sense. Nothing’s ever finished on a cosmological scale. Purpose, in this sense, is a deteminant possibility. That may sound oxymoronic, but it appears experientially valid.
