question related to evolution

[mjrpes]

It's an interesting concept. Although there is no real intentionality in evolution that controls mutations behind the scenes, organisms that rely on the mutual support and well being of its lesser parts seem to be the form that wins out in the end. Humans are no exception, especially when you consider language, which, as a phenomenon, does an exceptional job at bringing about the mutual support and well being of humans among other humans.

[[xeno]Julios]

The same Robert Wright who wrote the Moral animal?

aye - he also conducts many excellent video interviews here:

http://www.meaningoflife.tv

[[xeno]Julios]

as for dawkin's idea - it makes sense but I think the broader scale of evolution cannot be captured by an intelligent force.

For example, there may be milliions of planets that foster evolution to the point where AI develops.

Then the AI's somehow interact with each other, and the outcome of that determines the course of evolution at this higher level of functional organization. Unless you had an intelligence that was able to predict at this higher level, you're back to "normal" evolution.

[mjrpes]

Listen to the interview with Robery Pollack if you want to hear someone piss on Richard Dawkins.

[Hannibal]

Wouldn't 'teleology' be better than 'intentionality' in this context? These terms are not interchangeable, though I see some evolutionary scientists seem to assume that they are....bad scientists BAD BAD!!

Seriously, unless your opting for some uber-mind behind the mechanisms, 'intentionality' might breed confusion in a debate that, frankly Mr. Shankly, doesn't need any more.

[[xeno]Julios]

Wouldn't 'teleology' be better than 'intentionality' in this context? These terms are not interchangeable, though I see some evolutionary scientists seem to assume that they are....bad scientists BAD BAD!!

Seriously, unless your opting for some uber-mind behind the mechanisms, 'intentionality' might breed confusion in a debate that, frankly Mr. Shankly, doesn't need any more of it.

Directed at me or TNF?

[Massive Quasars]

The same Robert Wright who wrote the Moral animal?

aye - he also conducts many excellent video interviews here:

http://www.meaningoflife.tv

Seen it, some good interviews.

as for dawkin's idea - it makes sense but I think the broader scale of evolution cannot be captured by an intelligent force.

For example, there may be milliions of planets that foster evolution to the point where AI develops.

Then the AI's somehow interact with each other, and the outcome of that determines the course of evolution at this higher level of functional organization.

Yes, something like that.

Unless you had an intelligence that was able to predict at this higher level, you're back to "normal" evolution.

This wasn't what I meant, perhaps I wasn't clear.

[Hannibal]

At everyone in the known universe.

[[xeno]Julios]

This wasn't what I meant, perhaps I wasn't clear.

was discussing dawkin's ideas - specifically:

...the time when evolution stopped being an undirected force and became a design force.

just noting that on a larger scale, evolution need not always be a "design" force.

[[xeno]Julios]

At everyone in the known universe.

well I think there is room for teleology without a designer.

[Hannibal]

At everyone in the known universe.

well I think there is room for teleology without a designer.

Certainly, but this can't be said for intentionality...which is why I suggest dropping 'intentionality' in favor of teleological jibber jabber.

[Massive Quasars]

just noting that on a larger scale, evolution need not always be a "design" force.

I think I understand what you're saying.

[mjrpes]

But we'll lose this forum's core audience if we switch to teleological.

[mjrpes]

just noting that on a larger scale, evolution need not always be a "design" force.

I think I understand what you're saying.

could you say that with a little bit more gusto, MQ?

[[xeno]Julios]

At everyone in the known universe.

well I think there is room for teleology without a designer.

Certainly, but this can't be said for intentionality...which is why I suggest dropping 'intentionality' in favor of teleological jibber jabber.

yes - which is why i suggested TNF use the term "intentionality" to describe the notion he was criticizing.

/methinks we're on a diff wavelength here?

[Hannibal]

My point was a general one...that dropping 'intentionality' is good idea, since it does no real work...either for the 'blind watchmaker' view or a more 'directional' one. For people who in fact believe that evolution is 'steered' by a higher consciousness (i.e. Da Jesus), then by all means they can trumpet "evolutionary intentionality" till their balls explode. I didn't think TNF was only referring to this narrow band of people in his earlier statement...which is why I offered my friendly amendment.

[mjrpes]

I'm trying to think what sort of evolution would take place if it were to be controlled by sentient beings. Would evolution cease to be evolution if it became intellegent?

Would intelligent evolution place emphasis on "more intelligent" beings? So that all future beings would be able to compute pi to the three millionth digit instantaneously? Would it be an evolution of ethics, so that all future beings could only do actions that further the well being of its race, thus eliminating murder, raping, robbing, etc and emphasising good will and naked acts of kindness; in other words, a race of, evolved, mormonized beings.

What sort of constraints would this place on our idea of free will? Could evolution of this sort live hand in hand with our innate idea that we are born with a free slate and are allowed to do actions of any kind, good or bad? And isn't there some sort of excitement and meaning given to our life in the idea that we are in some ways free to choose between actions of good and evil? If this choice is taken from us, can life still be meaningful?

There is also the problem of computers and AI. The way technological progress is going, is seems at some point we will be able to harness such a great amount of computational power that it will become the crucial factor in this idea of "evolution." So, if evolution is taken to be the "survival of the fittest", it seems at some point computers/AI will at some point have better survival skills than humans. And this I think will become apparent as we become more emeshed in this idea of colonizing the universe, with all the preciseness and computational power needed to achieve such a thing. No need to mention The Matrix.

[Massive Quasars]

could you say that with a little bit more gusto, MQ?

Could but didn't.

[tnf]

My point was a general one...that dropping 'intentionality' is good idea, since it does no real work...either for the 'blind watchmaker' view or a more 'directional' one. For people who in fact believe that evolution is 'steered' by a higher consciousness (i.e. Da Jesus), then by all means they can trumpet "evolutionary intentionality" till their balls explode. I didn't think TNF was only referring to this narrow band of people in his earlier statement...which is why I offered my friendly amendment.

You are right, I wasn't referring only to those 'theistic evolutionist' types.

[[xeno]Julios]

I'm trying to think what sort of evolution would take place if it were to be controlled by sentient beings. Would evolution cease to be evolution if it became intellegent?

I think that in some broad way, the intelligence offered by the complexities of brain function are fundamentally similar to the "intelligence" offered by the complexity of natural laws. For example, the complexity of the laws of gravity are what allowed order to emerge out of chaos in the formation of the galaxy, solar system, and planets.

According to this way of thinking, I guess brain intelligence is simply a higher form of natural functioning. The laws of nature, which govern chemical and electromagnetic behaviour, are simply given a more organized and complex playing field in the cortical structures of the brain, than in other environments.

Products of these brains (i.e. AI systems) are still a function of natural laws - they're just natural laws functioning at a higher level of complexity than that offered through genetic mutation and selection. Genetic evolution functions through environmental processing. Intelligent creation functions through neural processing, a much tighter mechanism than the former.

But what of prediction, and intentionality? Not sure I can address these issues - the above is more of a speculative hunch if anything.

[Massive Quasars]

Hannibal, correcting me, said something similar in another evolution thread.

Hmmm, that might be a bit of a misnomer eh...if we are using our brains to manipulate X Y Z in the evolutionary matrix, surely this is not 'outside' of nature (i.e., non-natural).

Products of these brains (i.e. AI systems) are still a function of natural laws - they're just natural laws functioning at a higher level of complexity than that offered through genetic mutation and selection. Genetic evolution functions through environmental processing. Intelligent creation functions through neural processing, a much tighter mechanism than the former.

[Geebs]

Would it be an evolution of ethics, so that all future beings could only do actions that further the well being of its race, thus eliminating murder, raping, robbing, etc and emphasising good will and naked acts of kindness; in other words, a race of, evolved, mormonized beings.

That's a really interesting point. My take on it is that pretty much all of our "higher intelligence" is related to social interaction with other humans, due to another evolutionary arms race - i.e. the more manipulative/persuasive you are, the more likely you are to father lots of kids/persuade the dad to stick around and contribute to looking after them.

If you work on the basis that all traits must have some evolutionary component (which rings true if you look at the fairly shocking way most primate social groups carry on), then murder, rape, jaywalking etc. must be evolutionarily conserved because they confer a survival advantage.

I think the reason lots of people get confused about evolution is through the introduction of ethics, when ethics is a big warm fuzzy pipe dream which can pretty much be defined as the exact opposite of what actually goes on.

[[xeno]Julios]

I think the reason lots of people get confused about evolution is through the introduction of ethics, when ethics is a big warm fuzzy pipe dream which can pretty much be defined as the exact opposite of what actually goes on.

I don't see morality as being opposed to evolution in any way. I think there is a strong biological component to morality that has evolved over time.

[[xeno]Julios]

Hannibal, correcting me, said something similar in another evolution thread.

heh - missed that discussion - thx for pointing it out

[Geebs]

I think the reason lots of people get confused about evolution is through the introduction of ethics, when ethics is a big warm fuzzy pipe dream which can pretty much be defined as the exact opposite of what actually goes on.

I don't see morality as being opposed to evolution in any way. I think there is a strong biological component to morality that has evolved over time.

Morality is a series of rules which serve to warn us as to the sorts of behaviours likely to get us bludgeoned to death if found out (see also that bit in the old testament where they stone everybody for pretty much anything). But no one takes that shit seriously, ESPECIALLY as far as sex is concerned.