Evolutionary Philosophy and Reasons for Existence

@jeeprs,

I would hesitate before dismissing Polanyi with a sentence or two. He is an extremely formidable philosopher of science - I would think he is ranked with Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. (Separate thread, though.)

Hierarchy - it is not a matter of 'good, better, best'. It is not a MANAGEMENT heirarchy. Putting it very crudely, chemistry can't be explained by physics, biochemistry can't be explained by chemistry, physiology can't be explained by biochemistry, and so on. Each level, or layer, contains attributes that simply cannot be explained in terms of the level beneath. There is no physical description of the composition of salt.

Genetic determinism is an attempt to reduce the principles of living organisms to atomistic units of information. This is why it is the biological form of materialism. In the same way that materialists say that 'everything is atoms' (which it isn't, unfortunately for them), genetic determinism, of which the Selfish Gene is an expression, wishes to apply the same mistaken principle to life forms.

0 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;118284 wrote:

..... oh there are many different people who think they know the obvious answer. Quite probably many different entities too

Maybe I'm not getting your candor/humor/sarcasm. What do you mean by "probably many different entities too" who probably know? I ask my dog all the time "where's the bug?". Only he knows where the bug is. I can search for the bug and find it under the couch, but my dog knows because that's where he left it after his last chewing session. But I don't ask my dog "why" it's under the couch. May as well ask the couch. Neither one has the capacity to understand or answer concepts of "why".

In this case, I am the "who" that "knows". I know this because I've observed it and have the capacity to describe it to others. If a stranger asks "why", he would do better asking me (the who that knows) rather than my dog (the who that can't know).

Legitimate answers to "why" must come from a "who" that "knows" and that has a capacity to understand and communicate the concept.

As to the "many different people who think they know"... We of course pursue legitimate answers. I'm not talking about the ones who think or claim to know "why". I'm talking about the one who actually does "know why".

pagan;118284 wrote:

The language and narrative of the machine is very powerful and seductive. I am not a fully paid up member myself

Sorry I just don't understand your comment. What is the language and narrative of the machine? Are you speaking of natural or artificial machines? How is it powerful and seductive? Can it also be informative, truthful and precise? What type of membership are you talking about? What exactly are we disagreeing about here?

pagan;118284 wrote:

well we can only disagree again. There are several ways that this question has meaning depending upon the narrative used to understand the language. Your own reply even finally contradicts its initial assertion of another sentient source.

It is improper to create new "meaning" at the receiving end of a communication. Intentional meaning is first transmitted, and then through some very specific protocols, the very same meaning is received.

A lacking "narrative used to understand the language" by the receiver is no excuse for allowing the original transmitted message to change meaning during reception. It meant something very specific when transmitted. A receivers job is to receive, not to re-author. A receiver that thinks it's an author is a broken receiver.

How does my reply contradict its initial assertion?

When I speak of asking rocks questions of "why", I only mean that rocks cannot answer, and if we think they do, we have fooled ourselves into giving them credit for what was really us answering ourselves. But if we knew the answer in the first place, we wouldn't ask the rock, the idol, the crucifix, the burning bush...

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

Quote:

A lacking "narrative used to understand the language" by the receiver is no excuse for allowing the original transmitted message to change meaning during reception. It meant something very specific when transmitted. A receivers job is to receive, not to re-author. A receiver that thinks it's an author is a broken receiver.

uh well lets stop there. QuinticNon I think thats a good place because for me i disagree with everything in that quote ...... while it is obvious you passionately believe it. For me human beings are authors and that is what we are all the time. We are not broken recievers, because we are not mere recievers. Honestly we speak different languages, although in your language that is patently a false assertion. We would end up going around in fruitless uninteresting circles.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;118321 wrote:

For me human beings are authors and that is what we are all the time. We are not broken recievers, because we are not mere recievers.

Yes certainly. Like a telephone. Yet if a telephone did not have both, a transmitter and receiver, it would not be a telephone. Both contribute to the essence of "phone-ness".

The point is that even when both are present, that no one transmits with the receiver and no one receives with the transmitter. No one speaks with their ears nor do they listen with their mouth. Claude Shannon's communication protocol developed in the 1950's from his book "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" runs our entire modern day life. It makes a special effort to distinguish the individual roles of transmitters and receivers. The only way to reliably communicate is to adhere to the Shannon protocols. Shannon protocols do not allow ears to speak nor mouths to listen.

It is crucial to this discussion to acknowledge the differences because Hubert Yockey found that DNA/RNA transcription adheres to Claude Shannon's protocols. It is the only thing in the supposed "natural world" that does. Since this question involves evolution, it most certainly involves gene mutation. Gene mutation adheres to the communication protocols of Information Theory.

pagan;118321 wrote:

Honestly we speak different languages, although in your language that is patently a false assertion.

Honestly, we're both speaking English. When you talk, I listen... that's my job. If I truly wish to speak the same language as you, then that's all I can do. Respectfully, to you, my job as receiver is to listen, absorb, and understand you to the best of my ability. It would be disrespectful of me to take your words and bend them to fit my personal comfort zone, re-authoring your comments, and then accuse you of "meaning" something that you did not intend. Effective communication would be impossible that way.

pagan;118321 wrote:

We would end up going around in fruitless uninteresting circles.

I've never been good a predicting the future. If our comments contribute to this discussion prompt, then they could be quite fruitful.

Yes I'm obviously passionate about this subject. You earlier suggested that the "why" question was bigger than what it seems. You are correct. That's "why" I earlier dissected it so completely with illustrating the differences of "how" and "why" questions, how one justifies the other, the differences in natural and artificial machines, and the importance of codified information and communication.

Sorry Pagan, I know I can sound abrasive. I really don't mean to. My intentions are simply to share what science teaches, and offer it up for philosophical inspection. It puts everyone off if I sound jerky about it.

---------- Post added 01-07-2010 at 07:35 PM ----------

jeeprs;118307 wrote:

Genetic determinism is an attempt to reduce the principles of living organisms to atomistic units of information.

Well yes indeed that is precisely the crux of disagreement.

Many cannot fathom that information is immaterial, and atoms are material. The "atomistic units" are not information. They don't contain information either. They can only be arranged to represent information. Sentient mind is the only known mechanism to accomplish this.

Anything with a code is more than the mere corporeal element sum of its parts. Life equals energy, matter, and information. But I digress...

Point being, that questions of "why" must be asked upon a codified signal. Shall we suppose the answer to come back to us in a different manner? No, the answer must come back upon a codified signal as well.

The problem is not the question. The problem is connecting with the one "who" can give an honest answer.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

It should be fairly obvious after a little reflection, that natural selection(survival and reproduction) operates at the level of behaviors, even at the level of cultures and societies. That genetics is not the sole or even the major determinate of such attributes and behaviors. In fact the frequency of deleterious genes can be increased if the society has found a way to overcome the deleterious affects long enough for affected individuals to reproduce (say sickle cell anemia, diabetes mellitus, cystic fibrosis). The relative role of genes to evolution, particularly in higher organisms with complex societies and learned behaviors is (IMHO) is over estimated. Genes are often the undeserving beneficiaries of behaviors and societies not the cause.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I still think the prominence given to genes is exactly because they have been conceived as the 'fundamental particles' of biology, and scientific ideologues wish to bring to biology the certainty of Newton. Of course this could be another of my many over-simplifcations....

But the point that QuniticNon is making is also very important. I don't know if I draw the same conclusions from the idea as he does, but the argument is, as I understand it, that information, or, as I have put it elsewhere, meaning, is actually embedded in the fabric of the cosmos, one could say, and is logically prior to evolution, (and everything else that exists). This is one import of the extraordinary book, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P Yockey.

This actually challenges the notion that ideas, meaning, language, number, and many other fundamental structures, are somehow 'generated by the brain'. So the idea that H Sapiens evolves, and in so doing, learns to create language, meaning, number, and so forth, is challenged. Instead, these are part of the intelligible nature of reality. They don't 'exist' anywhere so are not 'objective', but neither are they purely internal to the thinker, and therefore 'subjective'.

(Of course prior to modernity, it would have been natural to believe that all such things were naturally 'the workings of the Divine intelligence'. Is this what 'the one who can give an honest answer' is pointing towards? I am completely sympathetic to that idea, but at this point, I am very interested in pursuing the notion philosophically. So I am bracketing that understanding - not criticizing it, but putting it to one side for now.)

Where I think this is going is towards non-dualism.

We have had many debates on the forum about the philosophy of number, whether numbers 'exist', if so, how they exist, or if they are the product of the mind, and so on.

I am coming around to the viewpoint that they are 'real intelligible objects'. That is, their reality is not dependent on the individual idea or grasp of them - they are not 'true for you' or 'true for me' - they are always true. But they also don't exist objectively. They don't exist 'anywhere'. In an important way, there is no such thing as number. This is why they are a hint of the actual nature of reality, which is that it is intelligible.

What is intelligible is different to what is sensory or empirical, although it must underlie them. It is not disclosed except for in the relationship between a knowing subject and a known object. We assume this intelligibility, as indeed we must, because it is fundamental to every fibre of our being, and every operation of our mind. But the source of this intelligibility must always elude us, for the very simple reason that it is not an object of perception, nor exists as an object anywhere in the cosmos. It is at a much, much higher order of reality than anything we are able to directly conceive or perceive.

This kind of thinking is generally associated with Indian philosophy, but I have found a very interesting title called Neither Brain nor Ghost, by Teed Rockwell, which pretty much says the same thing.

So we are actually closing in on our quarry here....

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

rather odd post, on my part. Oh well, I am just musing really.

I don't think this is idealism, though. I don't want to be idealist.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;118278 wrote:

There are different types of machines. Leibniz and early Cartesians had qualifiers for natural organic machines vs artificial constructed machines. It is important to note the differences and then ask, "is man a natural or artificial machine"? Leibniz claims that question cannot be answered in purely materialist terms and thus metaphysics must be addressed.

20th WCP: Leibniz's Distinction Between Natural and Artificial Machines

Personally, I believe that any machine which functions by running a codified program is an artificial machine. Those without a program are natural. In this sense, by noting the genetic code, man is therefor an artificially constructed machine.

Is DNA a code ? Written by whom or what ?

DNA can be interpreted as carrying what we are calling a code, but can we presuppose that we function by "running" DNA, or do we perhaps "run code" to implement some of our functions ?

How is running code as sure sign of artificial machine, and what is meant by artificial?

If I say that anything a natural thing does is not artificial, why is that not just as acceptable ?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

You must have missed it. Go back to the very first post in 'Could the Theory of Evolution as it stands, be wrong' and have a look at some of the links from there.

---------- Post added 01-08-2010 at 04:45 PM ----------

Or go to Information Theory and DNA: The Origin of Life

I don't want to debate this argument, but I am very interested in understanding it.

It does make a very salient observation about the information content of DNA and then proceeds to make some general observations about the nature of information, and where information comes from. (i.e.: information does not 'just happen'. It must be the product of a preceeding intelligence.)

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I also asked if calling DNA "code", literally, did not imply a codifier.
It's one more instance of biologists using purpose-based language and reasonings.
but has all Life been associated with DNA ?
Is having DNA the definition of "being alive" ?

And if so does that mean that all living things are artificial machines, but all nonliving things are natural...and if so, when you die, can I assume that you then become natural ?
When my artificial car dies, and rusts, it becomes natural, then gets eaten and becomes artificial again ?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

[QUOTE=jeeprs;118397] language, number, and many other fundamental structures, are somehow 'generated by the brain'. So the idea that H Sapiens evolves, and in so doing, learns to create language, meaning, number, and so forth, is challenged. Instead, these are part of the intelligible nature of reality. They don't 'exist' anywhere so are not 'objective', but neither are they purely internal to the thinker, and therefore 'subjective'. [/QUOTE] The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible. ~ Albert EinsteinImagination is more important than knowledge. ~ Albert Einstein When the solution is simple, God is answering. ~ Albert EinsteinScience without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. ~ Albert Einstein
I findthe notion that our minds create reason, logic, math, etc very strange. My take would be our minds recognize the logic, reason and mathematical nature of the universe. These are properties not imposed by our minds or created by our minds by recognized by our minds and are properties which are inherent in the universe. These are all forms of information. The informational content of the universe is high, and conservation of information is fundamental to the creation of a theory of everything or to the formulation of theory of anything that actually works, has predictive power or corresponds to anything "real".

jeeprs;118397 wrote:

(Of course prior to modernity, it would have been natural to believe that all such things were naturally 'the workings of the Divine intelligence'.

Well in many senses the philosopher's god is the source of order, mind, and rational intelligibility. God as rational agent and ordering agent is central. God as moral agent is a different question.
[QUOTE=jeeprs;118397] Where I think this is going is towards non-dualism

[QUOTE=jeeprs;118397] I am coming around to the viewpoint that they are 'real intelligible objects'. That is, their reality is not dependent on the individual idea or grasp of them - they are not 'true for you' or 'true for me' - they are always true. But they also don't exist objectively. They don't exist 'anywhere'. In an important way, there is no such thing as number. This is why they are a hint of the actual nature of reality, which is that it is intelligible. [/QUOTE] It depends on what you mean by "exist" doesn't it. You seem to be equating exist with material existence which is not your usual approach. I think mind (information if you will) is a fundamental property of reality. I think order, rationality, logic, and mathematics are all fundamental properties of the universe in the realm of "universal" mind and in some sense mind is information.

Theoretical mathematics is not the result of sensory perception or empirical experience. These completely imaginary mathematical systems not infrequently find real world applications and become applied mathematics. Imagination not based on sense perception theories of knowledge or direct empirical demonstrations often lead us to truth. Nothing could be more anthropomorphic and anthro centered than the notion that man is the measure of all things and that we create order, reason, math and logic in a world where such things only exist in our "minds" and not in nature itself. Some forms of religion can be less anthrocentric than some forms of secular humanism.

---------- Post added 01-07-2010 at 10:07 PM ----------

Oh, and yes DNA is a code and has high informaitonal content. What does not except for the formless void and primoridial chaos?

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;118433 wrote:

Oh, and yes DNA is a code and has high informational content. What does not except for the formless void and primoridial chaos?

Does this imply that everything is a code, and that DNA is not different than anything else in that regard ?

4 Replies

@memester,

hi QuinticNon

i too didn't want to cause offense either by asking for a respectful withdrawal. I took no offense from you. Its just that we have very very different views of the world in some crucial ways. The most notable being language itself. We use it differently, and we understand it differently.

For me the language of the machine is science and rationality. It is beautiful, powerful, and seductive. I used to be a fully paid up member as both someone who studied science (theoretical physics) and as an atheist seduced with that way of looking at the world. I thought it was complete, but i now realise that not only is it incomplete but to believe otherwise is very damaging in my opinion.

For me postmodernism was a profound experience. The end of the grand narrative. The acceptance of multi narrative.

I disagree for example that you cannot ask a question meaningfully of something that isn't recognised by science as a sentient being. The theory of evolution is generally concieved of as a scientific narrative. I think it makes perfect sense to ask a 'why' question of a narrative. In science the answer is always mechanistic. Even when it seems to speak socially as with say evolutionary psychology, it is still mechanistic. Thus for me to get anything other than a mechanistic answer as to "why ...." we need to use a narrative that is different in kind. eg religion.

I am a pagan. I believe in a spiritual relationship with nature, deepened by ritual. It makes sense for me to ask a 'why' question of the sky, or the earth ..... or even a rock. Nature is imbued with a spiritual dimension too.

Nevertheless, sentient beings are special. I do not consider them as 'artificial machines' ...... whether created by nature, god(s) or aliens.

Nevertheless again, the mechanistic narrative of science is beautiful and powerful and as such reasonably applicable to our bodies and nature generally, such that we may learn additionally from using that narrative.

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;118465 wrote:

Does this imply that everything is a code, and that DNA is not different than anything else in that regard ?

This would reduce something very complex to its simplest form. By code you mean a linear program for a digital machine. The universe does not use inefficient binary logic, but quantum logicat all levels of structural complexity, including subatomic, atomic, molecular, etc.

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;118465 wrote:

Does this imply that everything is a code, and that DNA is not different than anything else in that regard ?

The 'DNA as code' argument is a very large topic in its own right. The idea is that a code is not a pattern, because it has information content; it conveys information that causes things to happen. So DNA is unique in that regard. Non-organic matter does not convey information. Patterns occur naturally, for example, snowflakes and crystals; but they have no significant information content; they don't mean anything. The laws of physics can be encoded in a very small number of kilobytes of information. In contrast, the amount of information encoded in DNA is vast.

An associated argument is that if you introduce random changes to a code, the odds for those changes to be anything other than 'noise' are extremely low. This argument has been elaborated at great lengths by Perry Marshall, who is the creator of the Cosmic Fingerprints website. Perry Marshall, from what I can discern, is very clever, and his arguments are very good. However he has a rock-solid allegiance to the Bible, which I don't; so I don't necessarily come to the same conclusions as he does from the argument.

Now, be aware, the Discovery Institute, which is an ID think-tank, has siezed on this idea and as a result it is one of those 'hot topics' in the whole ID debate. So the tone of the debate is often very acrimonious. It has been debated on another board continuously for 5 years by Perry Marshall. He says his argument has not been defeated; many on the board thinks it doesn't even stand up. That link I provided above is an index to the debate if anyone wants to take a look.

There is a Discovery Institute article on the idea here.

My personal feeling: I am sure there is something in it. Put it this way - as I have said throughout this thread, and anywhere else I am asked, I am not a materialist. I don't think dumb matter has the wherewithal to organise itself into intelligent life forms. It doesn't just 'happen'. But as far as what happened, I prefer to remain agnostic. I feel strongly that there is a deeply spiritual principle behind all of existence, as should be obvious by now from what I have written in this thread, but I am not inclined to constrain it to one or another interpretation or outlook. I suppose I have a pluralist view: the topic is so vast that it must always sustain a number of different interpretations. The Hindus and many philosophical schools since ancient times have extremely intricate accounts of creation, including the cyclic creation-and-destruction of the Universe and the emergence of all creation from a single point(!). I see no reason why the single scriptural account handed down by one tradition should be 'the sole truth' (although I accept that it is also a perfectly valid 'faith vehicle' if practised as instructed.) So I too differ with creationism, but for different reasons than those of science. (And also I am definitely not anti-Christian as many scientific philosophers appear to be.)

(From the Buddhist viewpoint, the issue itself it not as important. The 'creation story' is not very significant in Buddhism, and the practise of Buddhism does not depend upon the story of the origin of man and the Fall, and these elements which are integral to the Christian outlook. So the agnostic position with regards to the origin of life is in keeping with Buddhist doctrine; it is one of the 'ten unanswered questions'. My interest is philosophical, and also I think it is important for Western culture to reconcile the spiritual and scientific accounts of existence.)

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I believe that model is digital and linear. It is appropriate for sending digital signals over a channel, like data transmission. Nature doesn't work like that. Also, keep in mind the difference between data and information. Information needs to be meaningful somehow to the sender and the receiver of information. In and of itself it is empty data.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Have a look at Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey. It addresses every one of the issues you raise, and then some. Note also that he is not a creationist or theist and does not advance this argument as the evidence of any kind of intelligent design. (He does claim that the origin of life may be forever unknowable, but he does so on strictly logical and scientific grounds.)

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Thanks, I'll take a look at it first chance I get. But my expectations from that book are quite low. There is enough disinformation flying around in popular books and articles on evolution to fill a fat book. Although some of it is based on genuine misinformation, to give them some left-handed leeway. Just the title of the book brings to mind the most common.

Most people do not realize that there is a vast difference between Darwin's theories and those of the "Darwinists". Darwin's theory is simple, logical, and is well grounded in the bases of other disciplines and in observations. "Darwinist" theories are far-flung, ranging from scientific to pure, and at times absurd speculation. Creationists and other critics of "Darwinism" confound the two, claiming that Darwin was wrong because some "Darwinist" theory is questionable or is absurd.

Darwin's theory is scientifically as well established as could possible be, and no amount of argument will ever turn it over. It says that outside influences (the "environment") affect the normal probability of events. When the table is tilted, the marbles will have the tendency to roll downhill. Darwin's theory is directly based on one of the possibilities for what *change* can be. Change can be deterministic, random, chaotic, intentional, or evolutionary. Darwin demonstrated examples of evolutionary change. Note that none of this has anything to do with God, creation, or telos.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;118465 wrote:

Does this imply that everything is a code, and that DNA is not different than anything else in that regard ?

To be perfectly frank about it, I do not know that much about information theory of information mathematics. I presume every ordered system contains information. I do not think all information is coded or consists of a code but it would probably depend on how defines those terms. Even as a neophyte, however, it would seem clear that DNA contains information in a coded form.

1 Reply

@bluemist phil,

bluemist;118705 wrote:

Thanks, I'll take a look at it first chance I get. But my expectations from that book are quite low. There is enough disinformation flying around in popular books and articles on evolution to fill a fat book. Although some of it is based on genuine misinformation, to give them some left-handed leeway. Just the title of the book brings to mind the most common.

Most people do not realize that there is a vast difference between Darwin's theories and those of the "Darwinists". Darwin's theory is simple, logical, and is well grounded in the bases of other disciplines and in observations. "Darwinist" theories are far-flung, ranging from scientific to pure, and at times absurd speculation. Creationists and other critics of "Darwinism" confound the two, claiming that Darwin was wrong because some "Darwinist" theory is questionable or is absurd.

Darwin's theory is scientifically as well established as could possible be, and no amount of argument will ever turn it over. It says that outside influences (the "environment") affect the normal probability of events. When the table is tilted, the marbles will have the tendency to roll downhill. Darwin's theory is directly based on one of the possibilities for what *change* can be. Change can be deterministic, random, chaotic, intentional, or evolutionary. Darwin demonstrated examples of evolutionary change. Note that none of this has anything to do with God, creation, or telos.

i like the idea that change can occur in a variety of ways as stated above. but i dont think it can be concluded that it has nothing to do with God.

---------- Post added 01-09-2010 at 10:09 AM ----------

"An associated argument is that if you introduce random changes to a code, the odds for those changes to be anything other than 'noise' are extremely low. This argument has been elaborated at great lengths by Perry Marshall..." Jeeprs

jeep, could you give a short summary as to why he thinks this?

1 Reply

Evolutionary Philosophy and Reasons for Existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know