Does Evolution Have An Objective?

All the inputs are used to determine how it chooses it's 'next move'. It is choosing between several options based on what has gone before (both programming and other inputs).
Please explain why that is not 'making a decision'.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

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

I think it is a rather obvious and simple answer. It is important to us. We are, afterall, viewing the universe through a human lens. It is true that the Universe is probably indifferent to the existence of our consciousness. However, we tend to focus on those things that are important to us, and I really don't see anything inherently wrong with that.This bias is also seen within biology. Linnaeus was unashamedly biased towards humans, and his classifications stuck. For example, we are Therians (which includes all mammals). This term means "crown". Linnaeus viewed the mammal group as the crown of creation. We are also Eutherians, which means the TRUE crown group. We are also Primates which means that we are the first and most important group. On and on it goes.Linnaeus is not alone. How often do we actually admit that the vast majority of life on Earth is unicellular? How often do we realize that there are more species in one family of insects (e.g. beetles) than there are species of mammals? When we think of biology as a science what do we think of first? Warm, fuzzy mammals or a species of specialized archae found only in a single geothermal vent?Humans also have a bias towards purpose. Events that we now comfortably attribute to natural mechanisms were once the domain of the gods. Poseidon was responsible not only for ocean storms but earthquakes as well. The gods were seen as participants in the natural world, holding the fates of men in their hands. We may scoff at the idea of Poseidon shaking the Earth and producing a tsunami with a swipe of his hand, but how far away is this idea from the idea that some entity was turning the knobs of evolution to produce us? We inherently see a hidden purpose for random events. This bias should be acknowledged as well.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Maybe I missed the point, but Panda was saying he hadn't made the choices himself, since he had no idea from the algorithms he programmed what choices would be made. They're still deterministic, because the same sequence of inputs would always result in the same outputs.On the wider issue, if you're saying that a deterministic decision isn't a choice, then I don't really see how choice is possible. If something is not determined by the conditions and events leading up to it, then its arbitrary. Does it make more sense to call that a choice?

No, I'm suggesting that a choice was still made even if given complete knowledge you could predict the choice. The different paths things that could have been chosen. That your means of doing that is deterministic does not effect that.Think of it like this:Environmental inputs -> you -> outcomesWe're making the choice because it's the you in that sequence that is key to which outcome occurs. It makes no difference whether that you is deterministic, probabilistic or mystically something else.

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.

Evolution does not have an objective any more than gravity has an objective. Shit just happens. Regarding a direction, I'd say that evolution sort of does have a direction... I guess I'd call that direction "outwards". It seems to me that every niche that life can fill, it does. Its always, inadvertantly, trying to expand as far and wide as it can. Its pretty sweet that an aspect of the universe is recognizing itself as an aspect of the universe... We're the only thing I'm aware of that can do that. But not just humans, right? Other animals too, no? Not the universe, itself as a whole, no. But if you want to call our consciousness a part of the universe, then yes. As they say:

quote:

---

We are the universe experiencing itself subjectively.

---

If the universe is completely deterministic, then there's definately nothing special about our consciousnesses and ability to make choices that can in turn affect the universe and "change the path", so to speak, because none of that is really actually happening its just that it seems like it is to us. I, as in me, am not just the some of my parts. There's something else there.The universe is not completely deterministic, and we are special entities.

As long as we recognize our biases for what they are I don't see a problem with it. Scientists anthropomorphize nature all of the time, even to the point of phrasing things in a teleological manner. However, it is meant as more of a literary device than an accurate portrayal of nature. For example, a physicist may say that light wants to travel the shortest distance between two points. Of course, light has no wants or needs, nor does it have the foresight to map out a path. We understand this as saying that the laws of nature make it so that light travels the shortest distance between two points.

Your gravity analogy works well here. Gravity does have a direction: downward. We can observe this by looking at how river flows, which is always downward. One of the results of water flowing downhill is the Grand Canyon. However, the Grand Canyon was not the objective of gravity, only a result of its direction and starting conditions. Or as you stated, shit happens.For evolution, that direction is higher fitness. Species are pushed towards higher fitness through natural selection just like water is pushed downhill by gravity. The results of this direction can be quite different, and they are. However, none of the evolutionary changes that we observe was the objective of evolution.

Look folks, IF the universe is fully deterministic.
That means there is from beginning to end only one path things will take. Like a rat in a maze, the rat chooses to take a left or a right, but regardless he ends up at the end of the predetermined path. That means regardless of the collection of atoms, gasses and meat puppets. ALL paths lead to the inevitable. That means you can choose to your hearts content, your choice is irrelevant.

People take this stuff way too seriously. A rollercoaster may have a predetermined path, but they sure are fun. A book may have a predetermined ending, but the story is still entertaining. If the universe is deterministic then we wouldn't be able to tell, so why not enjoy the ride?

I dont read books, and I hate roller coasters. All I have is my illusions that my choices are relevant. But alas I know the universe is nothing but a arbitrary amalgamation of matter set on a course. Human existence is superfulous to that end. So enjoying the ride is indeed all we can do to get the last laugh.

Relevance is a contextual issue. It is relevant to me if I choose to murder my partner or choose not to. It is irrelevant to the cosmos, which has no considerations of relevancy.

Trying to tell us something Modulous? Kidding aside you are all of course right. I listened to way to much Thelonious Monk today and had one to many fermented hops.

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.