Hi Tarren, Yup, we're in agreement.
> I agree with everything you said. However, a goal is something that can > only be formulated in some kind of mind - it's a mental construct. So to > say "life has a goal" makes no sense, *except* as the implicit statement > that e.g. "we interpret that life's goal is to survive". All goals are > interpretations... e.g, "the goal of a thermostat is to regulate the > temperature" is still an interpretive statement, because there is a level > of description of a thermostat that is perfectly valid yet yields no > concept of regulation. > > So then the statement that "the goal of life is to survive" is ok... so > long as we acknowledge that goals are always in the mind of the > interpreter. > > Terren > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>wrote: > >> Hi Roger, >> >> Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is what >>> the word means. And the goal of life is to survive. >>> So evolution is teleological. >>> >> >> Sorry but I don't agree that life or evolution have a goal. That would be >> a bit like saying that the goal of gravity is to attract chunks of matter >> to each other. You could instead see life as a process and evolution as a >> filter: some stuff continues to exist, other stuff doesn't. We can develop >> narratives on why that is: successful replication, good adaption to a >> biological niche and so on. But these narratives are all in our minds, we >> ourselves looking at it from inside of the process, if you will. From the >> outside, we are just experiencing the stuff that persists or, in other >> words, that went through the evolutionary filter at this point in time. >> >> >>> >>> In other words, life is intelligent. >>> >> >> Suppose I postulate that the goal of stars is to emit light. Are they >> intelligent? If not why? What's the difference? >> >> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <rclo...@verizon.net]> >>> 12/12/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >>> *From:* Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> >>> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >>> *Time:* 2012-12-11, 16:03:57 >>> *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and >>> emotional,brain study shows >>> >>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:46:23 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I sent a search link for you to know the opinions about it. >>>> >>>> in EP this your example does not offer a clear hypothesis. But there >>>> are others that are evident. It depends on the context. for example , >>>> woman have more accurate facial recognition habilities, but men perceive >>>> faster than women faces of angry men that are loking at him. I think that >>>> you can guess why. >>> >>> >>> It's the guessing why which I find unscientific. It helps us feel that >>> we are very clever, but really it is a slippery slope into just-so story >>> land. There are some species where the females are more aggressive ( >>> http://www.culture-of-peace.info/biology/chapter4-6.html ) - does that >>> mean that the females in those species will definitely show the reverse of >>> the pattern that you mention? Just the fact that some species have more >>> aggressive females than males should call into question any functionalist >>> theories based on gender, and if gender in general doesn't say anything >>> very reliable about psychology, then why should we place much value on any >>> of these kinds of assumptions. >>> >>> Evolution is not teleological, it is the opposite. Who we are is a >>> function of the specific experiences of specific individuals who were lucky >>> in specific circumstances. That's it. There's no explanatory power in >>> sweeping generalizations which credit evolution with particular >>> psychological strategies. Sometimes behaviors are broadly adaptive >>> species-wide, and sometimes they are incidental, and it is nearly >>> impossible to tell them apart, especially thousands of years after the fact. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >>>> The alignment detection is common in the animal kingdom: somethng that >>>> point at you may be a treat. it >>>> >>>> >>>> 2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are >>>>>> falsifiable<https://www.google.es/search?q=Craig%3A+The+evolutionary+Psychology+hypothesis+are+falsifiable&oq=Craig%3A+The+evolutionary+Psychology+hypothesis+are+falsifiable&aqs=chrome.0.57j58.640&sugexp=chrome,mod=2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=evolutionary+Psychology+hypotheses++falsifiable&oq=evolutionary+Psychology+hypotheses++falsifiable&gs_l=serp.3...8248.8713.5.9590.4.4.0.0.0.3.261.878.2-4.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.7ojIOs_e60Q&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=561e2e0a6415ac8d&bpcl=39650382&biw=1241&bih=584> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your link is just a Google search which shows that there is no >>>>> consensus on whether they are falsifiable. Why do you think that they are >>>>> falsifiable? I have made my case, given examples, explained why >>>>> evolutionary psych is so seductive and compulsive as a cognitive bias, but >>>>> why am I wrong? >>>>> >>>>> Try it this way. Let's say we are measuring the difference in how long >>>>> it takes to recognize a friend versus recognizing a stranger and we find >>>>> that there is a clear difference. Which would outcome would evolutionary >>>>> psych favor? I could argue that it is clearly more important to identify a >>>>> stranger, as they may present a threat to our lives or an opportunity for >>>>> trade, security, information, etc. I could equally argue that it is >>>>> clearly >>>>> more important to identify a friend so that we reinforce the bonds of our >>>>> social group and foster deep interdependence. I could argue that there >>>>> should be no major difference between the times because they are both >>>>> important. I could argue that the times should vary according to context. >>>>> I >>>>> could argue that they should not vary according to context as these >>>>> functions must be processed beneath the threshold of conscious processing. >>>>> >>>>> Evolutionary Psychology assumptions can generate plausible >>>>> interpretations for any outcome after the fact and offers no particular >>>>> opinions before the fact, and that opens the door for at least ambiguous >>>>> falsifiability in many cases. >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2012/11/30 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, November 30, 2012 3:37:35 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This speed in the evaluation is a consequence of evolutionary >>>>>>>> pressures: A teleological agent that is executing a violent plan >>>>>>>> against us >>>>>>>> is much more dangerous than a casual accident. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only if there are teleological agents in the first place. There are >>>>>>> some people around here who deny that free will is possible. They insist >>>>>>> (though I am not sure how, since insisting is already a voluntary act) >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> our impression that we are agents who can plan and execute plans is >>>>>>> another >>>>>>> evolutionary consequence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with retrospective evolutionary psychology is that it is >>>>>>> unfalsifiable. Any behavior can be plugged into evolution and generate a >>>>>>> just-so story from here to there. If the study showed just the opposite >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> that human beings can't tell the difference between acts of nature and >>>>>>> intentional acts, or that it is very slow, why that would make sense >>>>>>> too as >>>>>>> a consequence of evolutionary pressure as well. You would want to be >>>>>>> *sure* >>>>>>> that some agent is intentionally harming you lest you falsely turn on a >>>>>>> member of your own social group and find yourself cast out. This would >>>>>>> validate representational theories of consciousness too - of course it >>>>>>> would take longer to reason out esoteric computations of intention than >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> would take to recognize something so immediately important as being >>>>>>> able to >>>>>>> discern emotions in others face. That way you could see if someone was >>>>>>> angry before they actually started hitting you and have a survival >>>>>>> advantage. Evolutionary psychology is its own built in confirmation >>>>>>> bias. >>>>>>> Not that it has no basis in fact, of course it does, but I can see that >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> is psychology which is evolving, not evolution which is psychologizing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> because the first will continue harming us, so a fast reaction >>>>>>>> against further damage is necessary, while in the case of an accident >>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>> stress response is necessary. (stress responses compromise long term >>>>>>>> health) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, but it's simplistic. There are a lot of things in the >>>>>>> environment which are unintentional but continue to harm us which we >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> be better off developing a detector for. There is no limit to what >>>>>>> evolution can be credited with doing - anything goes. If we had a way of >>>>>>> immediately detecting which mosquitoes carried malaria, that would make >>>>>>> perfect sense. If we could intuitively tell fungus were edible in the >>>>>>> forest, that would make sense too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That distinction may explain the consideration of natural >>>>>>>> disasters as teleological: For example earthquakes or storms: The >>>>>>>> stress >>>>>>>> response necessary to react against these phenomena make them much more >>>>>>>> similar to teleological plans of unknown agents than mere accidents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The study shows the opposite though. It shows that we specifically >>>>>>> and immediately discern the intentional from the unintentional. The top >>>>>>> priority is making that distinction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hence, it is no surprise that the natural disasters are considered >>>>>>>> as teleological and moral . For example, as deliberated acts of the >>>>>>>> goods >>>>>>>> against the corruption of the people, or currently, the response of >>>>>>>> "the >>>>>>>> planet" against the aggression of the immorally rich countries that >>>>>>>> deplete >>>>>>>> the resources. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not a bad hypothesis, but I see the more plausible explanation >>>>>>> being that by default consciousness is tuned to read meta-personal >>>>>>> (super-signifying) meanings as well as personal and sub-personal >>>>>>> (logical) >>>>>>> meanings. Except for the last few centuries among Western cultures, >>>>>>> human >>>>>>> consciousness has been universally tuned to the world as animistic and >>>>>>> teleological. The normal state of human being is to interpret all events >>>>>>> that one experiences as a reflection on one's own efforts, thoughts, >>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>> This is why religion is such an easy sell to this day. By default, we >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> superstitious, not necessarily out of evolution, but out of the nature >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> consciousness itself. Superstition is one of the ways that the psyche >>>>>>> detects larger, more diffuse ranges of itself. Intuition taps into >>>>>>> longer >>>>>>> views of the present - larger 'nows', but at the cost of logic and >>>>>>> personal >>>>>>> significance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More on the failure of HADD here: http://s33light.org/post/**14998** >>>>>>> 04865 <http://s33light.org/post/1499804865> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "I submit that this Hyperactive Agency Detection Device is a weak >>>>>>> hypothesis for explaining the subjective bias of subjectivity. *To >>>>>>> me, it makes more sense that religion originates not as mistaken agency >>>>>>> detection, but rather as an exaggerated or magnified reflection of its >>>>>>> source, a subjective agent*. Human culture is nothing if not >>>>>>> totemic. Masks, puppets, figurative drawings, voices and gestures, >>>>>>> sculpture, drama, dance, song, etc reflect the nature of subjectivity >>>>>>> itself - it抯 expression of character and creating stories with them. " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/**ms**g/everything-list/-/**kWPAfLJdm1** >>>>>>> EJ <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kWPAfLJdm1EJ>. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >>>>>>> googlegroups.**com. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>>>>> group**/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Alberto. >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/* >>>>> *msg/everything-list/-/**FYDu8tOgYScJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FYDu8tOgYScJ>. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >>>>> googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alberto. >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TQH5ODB8QiEJ. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
