🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3078@news.cerf.net> snodgras@cyber.net (John E. Snodgrass) writes:
>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.
>
>      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!

As an intelligent entity, I have a number of purposes, one of which is to
survive.  Why should I single out this purpose as my purpose *as an
organism*?

And yet, Darwinian evolution, by its very mechanism, selects for survival.

>      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 think purpose, while externally you
>say 'mechanism'. This posturing itself _serves no purpose_.

I have no problem with saying that the purpose of the beak is to crack the
harder type of nut.  But I will insist that this is *not* exactly the same
meaning of the word purpose as I have when I say, for example, that my
purpose in writing this is to get people to agree with me.  One "purpose"
derives from the evolutionary dynamic; the other is inseparably part of the
behavior of an intelligent entity.