🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct06.011603.121346@Cookie.secapl.com> frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams) writes:
>In article <3027@news.cerf.net> snodgras@cyber.net (John E. Snodgrass) writes:
>> Without the purpose of attempting to survive, organisms
>>would not evolve. (But one cannot logically assert this purpose
>>also evolved.)
>
>The depth of misunderstanding in this statement boggles the mind.  The
>ESSENSE of the Darwinian theory of evolution is that no "purpose" of
>attempting to survive is required for evolution.  Mutating, self-replicating
>entities evolve, purpose or no.  You might as well assert that things fall
>because they have a purpose of being at a lower level.
>

      As you put it, it may sound absurd, but it may in some sense be true.
In a systems approach, in fact, it _would_ be true that there is a reason,
hence a purpose behind, the falling object. On some scale of process, motion
in a particular direction results from the adjustment of systems which are
acting to preserve stability. In terms of the 'framework analysis' of modern
physics, which is itself a PHILOSOPHY (whether or not you choose to 
recognize it as such) the falling of an object is "explained" by some 
equation which merely _describes_ it. In order to provide any qualitative
explanation, it is necessary to refer in some way to systems with purpose.
Notions of purpose, whether implicit or explicit, are in fact how we
understand and analyse events around us. "Why" something happened is not
explained by "because it happened before". "Why" do termites build nests
is not explained by "because termites often built nests before".

      As for your remarks about the theory of evolution, my intent was not
to regurgitate what someone else said about evolution, including Darwin.
My intent was to argue that purpose IS behind the operation of systems, and
that by recognizing this purpose we move toward understanding these systems
better. This is not unscientific. You can say that 'the purpose of survival
is not necessary for evolution', but that is an empty suggestion. You know
that organisms do have the purpose to survive, because you are an organism,
and that is your purpose! If this is not true, then I fail to understand
what you mean by purpose!


      When we look at organisms, in terms of structure or behavior, we
do analyse them in terms of purpose. Why does such and such a finch have
a tougher beak than this other finch on another island? Because, in order
to surive it had to crack this other, harder type of nut (or something).
Now, you can suggest that no purpose (i.e. to get food) is involved in
this analysis, and therefore an assessment of the better beak for this
purpose is somehow projecting ideas onto what is happening, but that is
fake objectivity. Internally you f*think purpose, while externally you
say 'mechanism'. This posturing itself _serves no purpose_.

      John E. Snodgrass [snodgras@cyber.net]