Does Evolution Have An Objective?

What is the difference between something that has an objective and something that is merely a result of conditions? Having an objective denotes intent which requires sentience. Just because a hole holds water it doesn’t mean that it intended to. If we all are just the result of conditions what is the essential difference between you and a mud puddle? Where is the demarcation point and why is it there?If evolution has no objective then how can anything be said to have an objective?

First a general acknowledgment of all replies. Good stuff.Second, I am not sure that this thread has a definable objective other than to explore the nature of things. I guess that I am trying to flesh out a rational perspective. I am looking for what causes that Dalai Lama smile.I see the attraction to the idea that if evolution has an objective then there must be some entity with the ability to hold an objective . I have never seen a reason to think that there is something capable of doing work within the universe that is not a part of the universe. I agree that the word ‘objective’ is usually associated with intent but not always, as Mr Jack pointed out. Am I conflating ‘objective’ with ‘direction’?The process of evolution or process of the universe is rolling along and making stars and mud puddles and eventually people. We are just another product of the process that also makes mud puddles. What is it about our sentience or consciousness that is suddenly worthy of distinction from the rest of the process? It appears that many consider our perceived ability to make choices to be the distinguishing element. But why does that ability merit considering ourselves to be separate or unique in the universe? Doesn’t our awareness actually belong to the universe? Is it wrong to say that the universe itself is aware?It seems odd to me that the question immediately goes to the differences between idealism and realism, a deterministic universe or not. I do see why it goes there but why is the distinction made? I am content to talk about free-will as it seems somehow fundamental and I am not convinced that I actually have it.I guess in the end I am questioning why the Eastern philosophy of oneness should not be taken as the one that is most reasonable. I have, for a long time, considered myself to be a distinct entity but is that a supportable position? Quantum theory would seem to say not.This interview with Amit Goswami is in the area of what I am trying to get at.The Weather Master - Advanced Weather Modification

Yes I can see that and would agree as far as it goes but that is egocentrism. Wouldn’t you agree that an egocentric approach to our place in the universe is likely to be flawed. We do this for good reason in our own locality but it does not transfer up to the scale of everything.

I was thinking that the direction (objective?) of evolution might be to evolve an entity that is ultimately fit. Immune to death. If such an entity were to evolve would it's evolution then cease? Maybe, if it's evolution had become self controlled. Yeah, I see that. Does this lend credence to the idea that 'The devil made me do it'? No judge that I ever talked to would buy that. I think that this is at the root of religion and the search for GOD. Why would we be scratching if it doesn't itch? I don't see how you get to that conclusion.

Yes but that is not 'choice' in the colloquial sense. That is like 'choosing' to accept an offer that you can't refuse.

I disagree because I cannot see any difference between what the nematode is doing and what Cavediver's spreadsheet is doing. Can you point out the diffence?This is a problem because if there are no choices then the whole shebang falls apart doesn't it. All of our notions of responsibility go out the window. So even if we could prove that we do not actually make choices we could not accept it.The film Minority Report does a fair job of highlighting this paradox.

I started this thread and then immediately ran out of time. Probably best for all concerned. The whole topic is at the edge of my ability to keep straight. I doubt that I can add anything but I feel obliged to answer.My answers are; The universe is deterministic. Everything has a cause(s). Probabilistic, random, irrational all refer to our level of predictive knowledge. The perception of ‘self’ as an originating cause. Yes and no. Freewill is an illusion, a product of self-awareness. If I am aware of the elements that caused me to make a certain choice then it feels less like a choice. If I am unaware of the causes of my choices I substitute my sense of self as the cause. So, our sense of freewill is born of the fact that we cannot know the causes of our choices in their entirety. So we have freewill because we believe that we do. A freewill of the gaps.In contrast to the perception of magic, the perception of choice is equivalent to the reality of choice as the reality of choice is nothing more than a perspective. No. Meh and pffft!To the OP and the question of an evolutionary objective. Somewhere along the line of cause and effect, consciousness was created. The resultant abilities produced things like forks and AI machines. No one would dispute that we are the cause of the AI machines and that their creation was our objective. If an AI machine ever becomes self aware it will then be able to form and hold objectives. This objective holding does not regress beyond us because we cannot ‘see’ the preceding consciousness. Intuiting that consciousness is the root of the god idea. Bad robot.The unsatisfying answer then to the ill formed and oblique question is that our freewill is the unique ability that allows us to hold an objective, if we have it.

Well, what else does it mean?

quote:

---

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

---

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Can you provide an example of an event where all of the inputs are known and the immediate effect is not predictable? There are many things beyond our ability to predict but that doesn’t mean we should abandon our understanding of, and evidence for, causality. No, the theory is not wrong. It is just not finished. The mutations appear, to us, to be random because we cannot predict them. Exactly. It is at this point that I would point out how good Canadian whiskey tastes with a little ice and water. No, no and no.Awareness causes the illusion of possibilities, choice and freewill. These are all egocentric terms.What of moral responsibility? I think that it is safe because we are adjustable machines. In the end it does not matter, to us, if it is only an illusion. It is real enough, relatively speaking, and beside that, how could we abandon moral responsibility and survive?

Right. Saying that something else could have happened shows that you don’t know what all the inputs are. Yes it does. Look again. There is only one type of determinism and it is complete. Either things have a cause or they don’t. Any other kind of determinism is some sort of watered down lawyer drink (no offense Subbie). Only because you can’t predict it. If you could predict them would they still be random? I find that by adding water it feels like I am drinking more of it. If I feel more satisfied, am I actually more satisfied? I think so.

Would you agree that random, in general, refers to our ability to predict? Or is there some other mathematical meaning?

OK, 'choose' a number between 1.

Yes, I agree. It was a poor choice of sentences. I should have said ‘choose’ a number between 1 and 1.Why does dualism begin when we imagine the mind as separate from the body and not when we imagine the body as separate from the rest of the universe? So you would agree that neither the spreadsheet nor the nematode are making choices. Where is the beginning of mind? When does a child begin to make choices? When does someone suffering from alzheimer’s stop making choices? It has only been foxing them for 2500 yrs or so. I suspect that it is much like trying to decide where the line is between green and blue.

I really want to agree with you here and I certainly feel like I am making choices. This is the part that I question.Edit; they just feel like options.Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that the more I appreciate the fact that choice is an illusion the easier it is to feel empathy for and to forgive people for their mistakes. Not to absolve them or hold them blameless but to feel compassion.

Yes alright, I accept that a choice was made. It is not the definition of choice or freewill that needs redefining. It is the definition of self that needs redefining. We conceive of ourselves to be like Thor when in reality we are more like the thunderstorm. (Edit: Which brings us back to what is the difference between you and a mud puddle?)As we discover the ways and means of our brains our sense of self will go the way of Thor. Like the disappearing humour of a joke explained. Love is still love even after it is reduced to a string of chemicals and hormones and receptors but wouldn’t you agree that it doesn’t feel quite the same?If ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.