Hi Roger,
> To be purposeful you need a self or center of > consciousness to desire that goal or purpose. > The key word is desire. Stones don't desire. > Ok, but what I'm saying is that purposefulness is not present in evolutionary processes. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <rclo...@verizon.net]> > 12/13/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-12-12, 14:21:04 > *Subject:* Re: life is teleological > > 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.
