|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Evolution Have An Objective? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Thread copied here from the Does Evolution Have An Objective? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
This sounds like a very oblique way to raise the question of free will in a deterministic universe, is that what you intended?
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If evolution has no objective then how can anything be said to have an objective? Conscious critters have objectives, primarily because they define 'objective' based on their behavior. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Dogmafood writes: 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? I don't agree that sentience is required for objectives. For a system to follow an objective requires that (a) the system identifies the objective and (b) takes steps to achieve it based on that objective. Thus a bee involved in nectar foraging behaviour can be said to have an objective, a computer AI can be said to have an objective (sometimes) and we can be said to have objectives but a puddle has no objective because it is not acting to achieve anything. Evolution meets neither criteria so it has no objective. Or, alternatively: only entities can have objectives. Neither a puddle nor evolution are entities so neither can have an objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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? You answered your own question.
quote: But is this correct? Is a gray wolf sentient? When it is chasing a rabbit it is clear its objective, the wolf's intent, is dinner.
If evolution has no objective then how can anything be said to have an objective? Is evolution sentient? Does evolution have an intent? Does a process ever have an intent? The water cycle is a process that exists on this planet. Did it develop with an intent or did it develop as a result of conditions? Humans are sentient. Some of the constructs of our sentience are objective or goal or purpose all denoting intent. Without human sentience these constructs do not exist. Our present sentience had no effect on the processes that developed in the universe. Our sentience, and thus our concepts, are an artifact of these processes developed as a result of conditions are they not?.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Wounded King writes: This sounds like a very oblique way to raise the question of free will in a deterministic universe, is that what you intended? TTFN, WK Interesting that in a completely deterministic universe our choices would be simply a illusion. From the moment of the big bang, your choice to log on this morning was nothing more than a cascade of physics and chemistry. So despite apparent objectives, the inevitable choice was already made at the universes inception.So if the universe is indeed fully deterministic, are our objectives simply a matter of course? Edited by 1.61803, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
1.61803 writes: Interesting that in a completely deterministic universe our choices would be simply a illusion. This does not follow. The universe could be completely deterministic, and we would still have free will and be making choices.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Scienctifictruths Member (Idle past 2867 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
Dogmafood writes: 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? Define your meaning of objective. Perhaps organisms have environmental objectives? The animals Evolve in such a way as to best suit their environment, however this is the result of Natural Selection and not some transcendental being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
1.61803 writes:
This does not follow. The universe could be completely deterministic, and we would still have free will and be making choices. Interesting that in a completely deterministic universe our choices would be simply a illusion. But those choices would be an illusion...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: Thus a bee involved in nectar foraging behaviour can be said to have an objective, a computer AI can be said to have an objective (sometimes) and we can be said to have objectives but a puddle has no objective because it is not acting to achieve anything. In the same sense would it be correct to say that genes have an objective? I.e. to pass themselves on.
Mr Jack writes: Evolution meets neither criteria so it has no objective. If genes can be said to have objectives then maybe evolution by natural selection could be said to have the "objective" of passing on a combination of genes suited to an environment? I admit it is a pretty tenuous use of the word "objective"..... But I am not exactly sure what the OP is looking for here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
The universe could be completely deterministic, and we would still have free will and be making choices. Or, this could be a probabilistic universe where a specific set of initial conditions does not lead to a specific future configuration but to a broad range of possible configurations. The interconnection and overlapping of billions of these broad ranges would give an almost infinite set of final configurations that may be achieved leading to the illusion of choice indistinguishable from free will. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Catholic Scientist writes: But those choices would be an illusion... Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: 1.61803 writes: Interesting that in a completely deterministic universe our choices would be simply a illusion. This does not follow. The universe could be completely deterministic, and we would still have free will and be making choices. How could something be a choice if it is predetermined?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Straggler writes: In the same sense would it be correct to say that genes have an objective? I.e. to pass themselves on. No, a gene has no concept of that objective, and takes no steps based on that concept to achieve it.
If genes can be said to have objectives then maybe evolution by natural selection could be said to have the "objective" of passing on a combination of genes suited to an environment? What would hold that objective? What steps would it be taking in response to that objective?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024