Re: Re: Re: Re: life is teleological

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes  

purpose   
/Noun 
The reason for which something is done or created or for which something 
exists. 

Verb 
Have as one's intention or objective: "God has allowed suffering, even purposed 
it". 


That seems reasonably straightforward, or at least it's not completely 
arbitrary. 
In Leibniz this is the basis of the principle of sufficient reason. 
Things must be the way they are for some reason.
That quest is the activity of science.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
12/17/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 

- Receiving the following content -  
From: Telmo Menezes  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-12-16, 06:16:47 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: life is teleological 


Hi Roger, 


  
Man has no purpose (wise or foolish, it doesn't matter) in life ?  
He has evolved, hasn't he ? So man is at least one example of  
purpose driving or enhancing evolution. 


Purpose is a human construct. DNA encodes the developmental process (or 
algorithm) for our brain. This developmental process then takes place in an 
environment inhabited by other humans and a lot of other stuff. The directives 
encoded in DNA allow the brain to adapt to this environment. So the brain is 
encoded with a preference to avoid pain and seek pleasure. The way that 
experiences are classified as painful or pleasurable is fine-tuned by aeons of 
evolution. 


The homo sapiens occupies a very specialised evolutionary niche, in which it 
relies in the superior pattern-matching and future state-predicting 
capabilities of its gigantic brain. So in a way, the homo sapiens niche is that 
of being capable of adapting faster and better to new situations. This requires 
a level of neural sophistication that is unmatched by any other species we've 
seen so far. This sophistication includes complex constructs like purpose. 


You're right in that, in a way, we have now transcended evolution. We developed 
medical technology that allows us to keep members of our species alive when 
otherwise they would have died (I would have been dead at 1 month old, killed 
by a closed stomach valve). We developed artificial insemination, allowing for 
reproduction where it would have been impossible. Our super-complex society 
keeps altering the mate selection process. Changes in sexual morality across 
time and space continuously affect the evolutionary process. We are now in the 
process of becoming full-blown designers, by way of genetic engineering and 
nano-tech. 



All this came as a by-product of the evolutionary drift towards our niche: 
gigantic brains and their complexities. Avoid pain and seek pleasure - now with 
super-super-super computers. Why do we avoid pain and seek pleasure? Why do we 
have gigantic brains? Because this configuration passed the evolutionary 
filter. It turns out that it's stable enough to persist for some time. 


Now back to evolution itself: it does not have any preference for niches. 
That's an anthropomorphizing mistake. We persist doing our thing, e-coli 
persist doing theirs. 


So finally my main point: evolution does not have a purpose, but it is capable 
of generating systems sufficiently complex to feel a sense of purpose. 


Have a great Sunday, 
Telmo. 
  
  
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
12/15/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 
  
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Telmo Menezes  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-12-13, 11:30:40 
Subject: Re: Re: life is teleological 


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] 
12/13/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 
  
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Telmo Menezes  
Receiver: everything-list  
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 
filte

Re: life is teleological

[Stephen P. King]

On 12/16/2012 10:15 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

If a beaver purposefully builds a dam


And a child drowns in the lake created by the beaver dam, do we 
execute the beaver?


or a bee builds a honeycomb 


If a honeycomb falls on the child, do we demand payment from all bees?


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Re: life is teleological

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Dec 2012, at 17:22, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
It is the infinities you need to say always "NO" to the doctor  
despite each
year he lowers the level of its digital brains. I can understand  
you say no
to the doctor who proposes you a 16K brain-computer, but why saying  
"no" to
the new one 1024^16000 sensory-motor-quantum-computer, especially  
if the
choice is between dying for sure (in the usual clinical sense) or  
having
perhaps the opportunity to stay alive for awhile (assuming you feel  
having

something more to say) ?

Bruno

On the basis of my beliefs, I will always say no to the doctor
because I am looking forward to my death
which is just my release from my physical bondage.
It seems to me that CTM predicts that possibility.




Yes.

If you survive with an artificial digital brain, then you survive no  
matter what, which might be as much terrifying than wishful thinking,  
especially that we don't know who we are, and the math get quickly  
*quite* complex. It even depends in part on what you are ready to  
identify with.


People will not accept artificial brain to be immortal, but just to  
see the next soccer cup, or the anniversary birthday of the grand- 
grand-grand-daughter or something.


Most people usually feel no hurry for the Nirvana, and most might want  
to explore a little bit more the Samsara (especially that it looks  
like there are evolving technics to get a glimpse of the Nirvana,  
while staying in the Samsara).


Bruno





Richard

--
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 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Re: life is teleological

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> It is the infinities you need to say always "NO" to the doctor despite each
> year he lowers the level of its digital brains. I can understand you say no
> to the doctor who proposes you a 16K brain-computer, but why saying "no" to
> the new one 1024^16000 sensory-motor-quantum-computer, especially if the
> choice is between dying for sure (in the usual clinical sense) or having
> perhaps the opportunity to stay alive for awhile (assuming you feel having
> something more to say) ?
>
> Bruno
On the basis of my beliefs, I will always say no to the doctor
because I am looking forward to my death
which is just my release from my physical bondage.
It seems to me that CTM predicts that possibility.
Richard

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: life is teleological

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Roger,


> Man has no purpose (wise or foolish, it doesn't matter) in life ?
> He has evolved, hasn't he ? So man is at least one example of
> purpose driving or enhancing evolution.
>

Purpose is a human construct. DNA encodes the developmental process (or
algorithm) for our brain. This developmental process then takes place in an
environment inhabited by other humans and a lot of other stuff. The
directives encoded in DNA allow the brain to adapt to this environment. So
the brain is encoded with a preference to avoid pain and seek pleasure. The
way that experiences are classified as painful or pleasurable is fine-tuned
by aeons of evolution.

The homo sapiens occupies a very specialised evolutionary niche, in which
it relies in the superior pattern-matching and future state-predicting
capabilities of its gigantic brain. So in a way, the homo sapiens niche is
that of being capable of adapting faster and better to new situations. This
requires a level of neural sophistication that is unmatched by any other
species we've seen so far. This sophistication includes complex constructs
like purpose.

You're right in that, in a way, we have now transcended evolution. We
developed medical technology that allows us to keep members of our species
alive when otherwise they would have died (I would have been dead at 1
month old, killed by a closed stomach valve). We developed artificial
insemination, allowing for reproduction where it would have been
impossible. Our super-complex society keeps altering the mate selection
process. Changes in sexual morality across time and
space continuously affect the evolutionary process. We are now in the
process of becoming full-blown designers, by way of genetic engineering and
nano-tech.

All this came as a by-product of the evolutionary drift towards our niche:
gigantic brains and their complexities. Avoid pain and seek pleasure - now
with super-super-super computers. Why do we avoid pain and seek pleasure?
Why do we have gigantic brains? Because this configuration passed the
evolutionary filter. It turns out that it's stable enough to persist for
some time.

Now back to evolution itself: it does not have any preference for niches.
That's an anthropomorphizing mistake. We persist doing our thing, e-coli
persist doing theirs.

So finally my main point: evolution does not have a purpose, but it is
capable of generating systems sufficiently complex to feel a sense of
purpose.

Have a great Sunday,
Telmo.


>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 12/15/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Telmo Menezes 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-12-13, 11:30:40
> *Subject:* Re: Re: life is teleological
>
>  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] 
>> 12/13/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* Telmo Menezes 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *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] 
>>> 12/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -

Re: Re: life is teleological

[Telmo Menezes]

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] 
> 12/13/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Telmo Menezes 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *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] 
>> 12/12/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *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 
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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+hypoth

Re: Re: life is teleological

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:40:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> Since evolution is evolution of living creatures, who must have the desire
> to live and grow and mate, 
>

A lot of living creatures don't mate. While I agree that life is about 
desire as much as evolution, I don't see the two as related. Creatures 
evolve with or without desire. Everything evolves. Crystals evolved from 
minerals.
 

> it is goal-oriented, and thus at least
> partly teleological.  
>

Everything is partly teleological.
 

>  
> Teleonomy (I had to look it up) is defined as only "apparent" 
> puposeful-ness.
> How do those that assign telonomy to evolution know that it is only
> apparent ?  That sounds like a dodge to me.
>

It's not my idea and it's not a new one either. 
http://philpapers.org/rec/LAGTRO

I don't think that was the paper I read actually, but the one that I did 
read was compelling in making the distinction between the two. It's 
unshakably obvious to me now. Teleonomy is a quant game. Teleology is 
everything else.

 
> Do you feel that your life is only "apparently" purposeful ? 
>

No, but my life has nothing to do with reproduction or natural selection.
 

>  
> I say that if life appears to be purposeful, it IS purposeful. 
>
 
> If you think you're having fun, you're having fun.
>

I agree, of course, but evolution isn't having fun, and it's only purpose 
is diversification and consolidation. You are conflating the mechanics of 
natural selection with the progressing quality of life. They are only 
tangentially related. You are aware, I assume, that some mammals evolved to 
go back into the sea. It's not always a forward arrow. Some species devolve 
qualitatively.

Craig

 
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/13/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-12-12, 15:43:15
> *Subject:* Re: life is teleological
>
>  
>
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:56:39 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is what 
>> the word means. And the goal of life is to survive.
>> So evolution is teleological. 
>>  
>> In other words, life is intelligent.
>>
>
> Just repeating my comment above:
>
> The difference between teleology and teleonomy (evolution) is that 
> teleonomy is the accumulation of unintentional consequences. Even if the 
> goal of life were to survive, that goal has nothing whatsoever to do with 
> natural selection. I'm sure that the dinosaurs wanted to survive as much as 
> the mammals who superseded them. 
>
> Teleology is about initiating sequences and carrying them out voluntarily 
> - sometimes in spite of consequences or in direct opposition to them. 
> Teleology is the defiance of evolution - it is artificial selection over 
> and above natural selection.
>
> Craig
>
>   
>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
>> 12/12/2012 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>  
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *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 anyt

Re: Re: life is teleological

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:32:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> Teleology or intending from inside toward a goal is the science of final 
> causation, 
> to use Aristotle's term. Because from inside, it requires intelligence. 
> Such is life.
> Or driving a car.
>  
> Science or determinism deals with effective causation (pushing from 
> outside).
> No self-directing intelligence is needed. 
>

I agree with that, although to be precise, effective causation is not so 
much a pushing as a falling or flowing. This is why evolution is effective 
causation. There's no intelligence there. Some species die out, others live 
on. The species themselves have intelligence, but that doesn't always give 
them an evolutionary advantage. Sometime the stupid ones sleep in their 
caves while the tiger kills off the smart ones hunting in the jungle.

Craig

 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/13/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-12-12, 15:41:47
> *Subject:* Re: life is teleological
>
>  
>
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:48:31 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: 
>>
>> Hi Telmo, 
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Exactly right. The difference between teleology and teleonomy (evolution) 
> is that teleonomy is the accumulation of unintentional consequences. Even 
> if the goal of life were to survive, that goal has nothing whatsoever to do 
> with natural selection. I'm sure that the dinosaurs wanted to survive as 
> much as the mammals who superseded them. 
>
> Teleology is about initiating sequences and carrying them out voluntarily 
> - sometimes in spite of consequences or in direct opposition to them. 
> Teleology is the defiance of evolution - it is artificial selection over 
> and above natural selection.
>
> Craig
>
>  
>> 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 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], [rcl...@verizon.net]
>>>> 12/12/2012 
>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> - Receiving the following content - 
>>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>>> *Time:* 2012-12-11, 16:03:57
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and 
>>>> emotional,brain study shows
>>>>

Re: life is teleological

[Telmo Menezes]

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 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] 
>>> 12/12/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *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 

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>
>> Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are 
>> falsifiable
>
>
> Your link is just a Google search which shows that there is no
> consensus on whether they are fa

Re: life is teleological

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:56:39 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is what 
> the word means. And the goal of life is to survive.
> So evolution is teleological. 
>  
> In other words, life is intelligent.
>

Just repeating my comment above:

The difference between teleology and teleonomy (evolution) is that 
teleonomy is the accumulation of unintentional consequences. Even if the 
goal of life were to survive, that goal has nothing whatsoever to do with 
natural selection. I'm sure that the dinosaurs wanted to survive as much as 
the mammals who superseded them. 

Teleology is about initiating sequences and carrying them out voluntarily - 
sometimes in spite of consequences or in direct opposition to them. 
Teleology is the defiance of evolution - it is artificial selection over 
and above natural selection.

Craig

 
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/12/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *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 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 

 Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are 
 falsifiable
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 acc

Re: life is teleological

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:48:31 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Hi Telmo,
>
> 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.
>

Exactly right. The difference between teleology and teleonomy (evolution) 
is that teleonomy is the accumulation of unintentional consequences. Even 
if the goal of life were to survive, that goal has nothing whatsoever to do 
with natural selection. I'm sure that the dinosaurs wanted to survive as 
much as the mammals who superseded them. 

Teleology is about initiating sequences and carrying them out voluntarily - 
sometimes in spite of consequences or in direct opposition to them. 
Teleology is the defiance of evolution - it is artificial selection over 
and above natural selection.

Craig


> 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 
> 
> > 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], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
>>> 12/12/2012 
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>  
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content - 
>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>>> *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 

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 
>>
>> Craig: The evol

Re: life is teleological

[Telmo Menezes]

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] 
> 12/12/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *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 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are 
 falsifiable
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 th