Your "argument" doesn't work, ucarr.

My third premise says that if a universe has as one of its essential features the inevitability of life, then it has as concomitant essential features intentions and teleology. — ucarr

This leap is unwarranted. Assuming that "life" is an "essential feature" of the universe, on what grounds – factual basis – do you claim Intelligent life (ergo "intention and teleology") is inevitable?

My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life.

This anthropomorphic projection renders the premise incoherent at best.

In this conversation, I want to examine whether or not positing evolution in place of a creator amounts, in the end, to the same thing as positing a creator in place of evolution. — ucarr

The topic title is about cosmology, not evolution. Cosmology concerns a description of the universe, not about the origin of the species.
Then you ignore evolution altogether and talk instead about abiogenesis, which is neither cosmology nor evolution.

You also seem to assume that any atheist will take up this oscillating view of the universe pushed by Sagan. This is hardly the case, and it is a fringe view in the scientific community.

So anyway, are we talking about why the creatures are the way they are, or about why the universe is the way it is?

I support eternalism, but that's probably a different kind of eternal universe than the one you seem to be thinking of.

My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

Kind of begs the theistic view now, doesn't it? How are you going to disprove the alternative view if your first premise is that the alternative views are all wrong?

My second premise says that in a universe both eternal and mechanistic, probability makes it inevitable life will appear. — ucarr

Demonstrably false. Most mechanistic universes lack the complexity required for life, or even an atom. The whole ID argument depends on this premise being false.

"argument" — 180 Proof

Like the quote marks.

There are a few arguments on the forum at present that start by assuming that such-and-such is irreducible, and then pretend to discover that it must have some ontological priority - @Bob Ross does this in his threads, as do others. Here goes with intentionality, or teleology, or both...

Sad.

My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

This anthropomorphic projection renders the premise incoherent at best. — 180 Proof

My claim is based on thinking living organisms all the way down to unicellular forms move, eat, excrete and reproduce. These behaviors, according to my present understanding, exemplify intention (to live and thus to avoid destructive forces when detected) and to design (follow patterns detected as successful routes to essential goals such as eating) and to will (pay life forward to the next generation via reproduction).

My third premise says that if a universe has as one of its essential features the inevitability of life, then it has as concomitant essential features intentions and teleology. — ucarr

Your "argument" doesn't work, ucarr. — 180 Proof

I'm using our human existence on earth as an example of the inevitability of life in our universe. In my thinking, I'm using evolution (which, as you know, is defended and promoted as a means for appearance of life without a divine creator) as a probability embedded within the organic chemistry of earth. Also, I'm using Sagan's supposition that the universe is uncreated and eternal. My logic is that since the building blocks of life are embedded within earth's organic chemistry, given an unlimited amount of time plus given the possibility of organic chemistry upwardly evolving into living organisms, that the building blocks of life on earth actually upwardly evolve into living organisms is inevitable.

This leap is unwarranted. Assuming that "life" is an "essential feature" of the universe, on what grounds – factual basis – do you claim Intelligent life (ergo "intention and teleology") is inevitable? — 180 Proof

Assuming life is an essential feature of the universe per the above argument, I claim that intelligent life is inevitable because, firstly, evolution has been validated by some respected scientists and thus, it can be reasonably expected that living species will upwardly evolve into sentient beings with ever more powerful intentions coupled with ever more rationally designed plans for achieving said intentions.

And, to repeat my upshot, such evolution will inevitably evolve to a lofty position wherein it becomes virtually indistinguishable from the God-Creator teleology of theism.

Evolution – adaptive variations via natural selection – is not teleological.

The topic title is about cosmology, not evolution. Cosmology concerns a description of the universe, not about the origin of the species. — noAxioms

I acknowledge the correctness of your distinctions of classification.

My thinking herein follows from an assumption that, with respect to my premise saying intentions and designs are inseparable from living organisms, regardless of their degree of sophistication, the universe i.e., the cosmology of living organisms, is the theater in which both evolution and, as I argue, its concomitant intentions and designs play out. In short, whenever the evolution versus creator debate arises, cosmology and evolution are, in my opinion, next door neighbors. This is clearly the case because, as I think, discussion of the origin of life naturally finds its place upon the ultimate stage of cosmology.

Then you ignore evolution altogether and talk instead about abiogenesis, which is neither cosmology nor evolution. — noAxioms

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think it logical to include abiogenesis within the category of evolution. Without its inclusion, evolution falls prey to arguments declaring it's limited to pre-existing life made possible by a supernatural creator. Isn't this a weakness supporters wish to shore up by such an inclusion?

You also seem to assume that any atheist will take up this oscillating view of the universe pushed by Sagan. This is hardly the case, and it is a fringe view in the scientific community. — noAxioms

I take note of your limitation. For my purpose, however, this particular form of cosmology supports my arguments without precluding their application to other forms of cosmology.

So anyway, are we talking about why the creatures are the way they are, or about why the universe is the way it is? — noAxioms

I cite my claim the two topics are neighbors as reason for addressing them simultaneously.

I support eternalism, but that's probably a different kind of eternal universe than the one you seem to be thinking of. — noAxioms

You can inform me about the variety of eternal universes. For now, I'm inclined to think any eternal universe that includes evolution by logic also includes the science of probability and thus the inevitability of life.

My first premise says intentions and teleology are essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

Kind of begs the theistic view now, doesn't it? How are you going to disprove the alternative view if your first premise is that the alternative views are all wrong? — noAxioms

I want you to direct my attention to a life form that has been verified to be devoid of all intentions to survive and all designs (teleology) towards effecting survival.

My second premise says that in a universe both eternal and mechanistic, probability makes it inevitable life will appear.
— ucarr
Demonstrably false. Most mechanistic universes lack the complexity required for life, or even an atom. The whole ID argument depends on this premise being false. — noAxioms

Firstly, I'd like you to give me a tour of the contents of a universe without atoms.

What is the ID argument?

I don't see where this attack addresses itself to a universe specifically endowed with eternity and the mechanization of evolution.

I don't think this argument works for the reasons stated above. However, I don't think the assertion of the Copernican Principle as dogma is a particularly good look for modern "scientism" either.

Of course, I hate the term scientism, because it sounds negative. By it I just mean attempts to build a metaphysics out of what is widely popular within the natural sciences; this isn't science per say, because it goes beyond science's writ.

I do think there is something to be said about your allusion to the universe as a "Turing Machine." While I find the claim that the universe is computable to be highly speculative, and integrated information theory/computational theory of mind to be even more speculative, they do seem to leave the door open for something like a conscious universe. To be honest though, it's easy to see this as more a problem with those theories than anything else.

Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos," is a pretty good analysis of the problems with the plausibility of the "mainstream view," i.e., that the universe is essentially meaningless and valueless and no teleology can been seen in it (or should even be sought), that consciousness is not essential to existence, that objective/subjective is a useful hard line between suis generis modes of being, that all we can strive for is good maps of a noumenal territory, etc. You might be interested in that. It doesn't offer as strong an argument as you're trying to make, but it's more a diagnostic about the cracks in this view.

Actually, I am not sure how mainstream this view is anymore since a good deal of popular science seems to challenge it, but maybe that is selection bias on my part. It seems to be limping along based on inertia. To some degree, it seems to be a generational degree. Folks like Hawking, who came along at the height of the positivist attempt to dispense with metaphysics, are at the end of their careers or are sadly no longer with us. The new crop of "big names," seems to have a different attitude towards the received view, or at least a much more open attitude towards metaphysics. I can sort of see the potential for a strong "ontological turn," on the horizon, but maybe it's a mirage created by selection bias.

I don't see where this attack addresses itself to a universe specifically endowed with eternity and the mechanization of evolutions.

It's very easy to make a mechanistic 4 dimensional toy universe that just iterates infinitely through the same pattern. It seems completely possible to mathematically describe a universe that is without beginning or end but which lacks life.

I think the bigger question is whether mechanism and mathematics can fully describe true being as it actually is; so to a degree focusing on mechanism out the gate seems to put the cart before the horse.

↪ucarr Evolution – adaptive variation via natural selection – is not teleological. — 180 Proof

I contest the logic and reality of your above claim on the basis of its inclusion of "adaptive" and "selection." I acknowledge my contextual use of teleology might be on less than solid ground because, per my usage herein, I'm talking about a sentient individual who possesses self-advancing purpose and self-advancing designs for achieving its purpose. Even so, teleology in the conventional sense of understanding purpose as a functional role played by something within the larger scheme of its environment which, in turn, moves with direction towards some still higher manifestation well serves my argument.

What could be more pertinent to purpose that adaptation to present conditions? Can evolution even proceed without purposeful adaptation to a changing environment? It doesn't require a biologist to know that living organisms unable to adapt to changing conditions, like the earth's dinosaurs, will perish rather than adapt.

Likewise, regarding selection, what could be a more purposeful action on nature's part to select for those living organisms best able to adapt to her environments? To select (as opposed to passively accept) possibilities is an excellent way to demonstrate the meaning and value of purpose, whether personally or systemically.

"argument"
— 180 Proof

Like the quote marks.

There are a few arguments on the forum at present that start by assuming that such-and-such is irreducible, and then pretend to discover that it must have some ontological priority - Bob Ross does this in his threads, as do others.

Sad. — Banno

Each premise is potentially falsifiable.

Actually, I am not sure how mainstream this view is anymore since a good deal of popular science seems to challenge it, — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think I understand you think my argument old school.

On the other hand, you're pondering the possible comeback of metaphysics [?]

:roll: Compositional fallacy. Just because some individual organisms might be "purposeful" does not entail that a population (or global process like evolution) is "purposeful".

Each premise is potentially falsifiable. — ucarr

No, they are not; for instance, "For every organism there is some purpose" is a classic all and some, neither falsifiable nor provable. Failure to locate a purpose for some particular organism does not imply that it has no purpose, nor does locating a particular purpose for some organism entail that all organisms have a purpose.

But one should not expect such a cosmology to be falsifiable.

The accusation that evolution entails teleology is common, and basically, with some nuance, wrong.

In addition to the problems already cited, we might add

...that can, with reason, be called a creator. — ucarr

...which suffers the same problems as Anselm's "and this we all call God".

I could go on, but that might suffice. Cheers.

↪ucarr :roll: Compositional fallacy. Just because some individual organisms might be "purposeful" does not entail that a population (or global process like evolution) is "purposeful". — 180 Proof

That's right. But upright apes, like snails, are not thought to have populated the earth one billion years ago. If evolution, generally speaking, has no purpose, doesn't that force us to conclude, logically, that evolution meanders about at random? If this conclusion is correct, then why didn't humans exist on earth one billion years ago? Or did they? If all of the organic compounds necessary to life have been on earth for, say, one billion years, why didn't a meandering, purposeless evolutionary process raise up some humans? Perhaps you say it was, at that time, a possibility, albeit one fantastically improbable.

Doesn't probability, even when fantastically improbable, point us toward a teleology-resembling selective evolutionary process governed in a manner probabilistically organizational i.e., loosely teleological? The animal kingdom of today, like that of a billion years ago, is not a case of anything goes, genetically speaking. A useful mutation organizationally advanced a billion years beyond its surrounding animal kingdom is extremely unlikely, right? Might this indicate evolutionary change is controlled probabilistically in context?

A mathematics-bearing universe puts up gnarly resistance to exclusion of teleology, likewise a consciousness bearing universe.

Each premise is potentially falsifiable.
— ucarr
No, they are not; for instance, "For every organism there is some purpose" is a classic all and some, neither falsifiable nor provable. Failure to locate a purpose for some particular organism does not imply that it has no purpose, nor does locating a particular purpose for some organism entail that all organisms have a purpose. — Banno

Clarification: in my context here, teleology mainly means self-advancing intentions coupled with designed behavior governed by goals.

The core of my thesis takes teleology and puts it inside of sentient beings, human beings specifically.

Intentions and teleology are internal and essential to all forms of life.

In a universe both eternal and mechanistic, probability plus evolution makes it inevitable life will appear.

If a universe has as one of its essential features the inevitability of life, then it has as concomitant essential features internalized intentions and teleology.

If a universe has, in addition to the above essential features, evolution, then it’s inevitable life will evolve therein. This state of affairs will lead logically to an ever, upwardly-evolving teleology that, after enough time, will resemble a cosmic teleology that can, with reason, be called a creator.

Show me how the above four premises are not falsifiable.

The core of my thesis takes teleology and puts it inside of sentient beings, human beings specifically. — ucarr

yet

Intentions and teleology are internal and essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

Is it for humans, or for viruses too?

The thesis remains unclear, and prima facie incoherent.

The thesis remains unclear, and prima facie incoherent. — Banno

:up:

I'm interested and forgive me if this is obvious, do you subscribe to any form of theism? Do you beleive that the universe is a created artefact by some kind of deity?

So by your argument above, a 'god' figure is an inevitability, built into the fabric of reality? Does this not mean that god is contingent and not a necessary being? If we temporarily set aside your argument, have you got a tentative backstory for why this is the case or what the meaning of all this might be?

Intentions and teleology are internal and essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

I find all teleological assignments to lifeforms implausible.
A wolf did not get sharp teeth because it needed them. The sharp teeth evolved not because of evolutionary intent, but due to the process of natural selection, working over a very long time.

I think you are simply placing 'intention,' too close to the origin process for the universe/cosmos.
The intention of a lifeform emerges and develops in complexity, over time, reaches a maximum and then dilutes and terminates, due to entropy, over time. Intention is relative and localised. I see no universal or cosmic reference frame for intention. Intention is emergent, not inherent.
I do have some common ground with you, in that given very large variety in very large combination over a very large time duration, life becomes more and more likely but I don't see any teleological based universal intent, as some underlying prime mover. Your proposal of some emerging networked totality of intellectual, sentient life, that could be labelled 'god' at some instant of time, way, way in the future of this universe, is for me, compelling, but not significant, as I think such will probably coincide with the end of this universe, as I think it will take at least that long for the god label to be correctly applied to that emergence (or perhaps within this Aeon cycle, as in Penrose's CCC).

Carl was 100% correct imo. He simply insisted that we just don't know the full origin story of the universe but he insisted, that that was ok for now. He further insisted that science and only science has provided us with all the useful, valuable information we now have regarding the origin truth. Theism has bore zero valuable information regarding the origin story. Carl simply suggested that the rational path is therefore to follow science and follow the evidence and reject the woo woo.

Hello Banno,

Although I cannot speak for what ucarr is saying (as I haven’t read it), I just would like to take this opportunity to clarify some misconceptions about my view.

There are a few arguments on the forum at present that start by assuming that such-and-such is irreducible, and then pretend to discover that it must have some ontological priority

Firstly, I would just like to point out how, with all due respect, how disingenuous this sort of straw man of my position is. I’ve posted two discussion boards (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14524/argument-for-a-mind-dependent-qualitative-world and https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14346/a-case-for-analytic-idealism) outlining arguments for why I think qualities are irreducible to quantities (and, more generally, why mental states are irreducible to brain states).

Now, if you disagree with my assessment, then that is totally fine; but if you genuinely believe that my claim is that of an assumption and mere pretend, then I would like you to provide some proof of this.

Secondly, since you referenced 180 Proof’s post, I would like to note, as well, that I am not anthropomorphizing the universe. I do not hold that it has the ability to cognize nor deliberate nor any other human kind of higher evolved sentiments/capabilities.

I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob

I find all teleological assignments to lifeforms implausible.
A wolf did not get sharp teeth because it needed them. The sharp teeth evolved not because of evolutionary intent, but due to the process of natural selection, working over a very long time.

Indeed. But I do think there is a troubling tendency to try to divorce evolution from all intentionality. I had to spend a very long time explaining to someone reviewing a paper I wrote why it is that natural selection, as applied to corporations, languages, elements of states, people groups, etc. can absolutely involve intentionality. It's like, somewhere along the line, to avoid mistakes about inserting intentionality into places it doesn't belong, a dogma was created that natural selection necessarily can't involve intentionality.

Obviously, people choose who they mate with based on intentional decisions though. Many animals are also picky about who they mate with. They also only mate if they survive and they only survive based on intentional choices they make. Intentional choices change the enviornment which in turn affects future selection pressures. Intentional behavior increasingly seems able to alter the genes that parents pass to their offspring in ways that violate the common conception of heredity.

Processes like self-domestication, particularly the high levels of self-domestication that humans enacted upon themselves, don't make sense without appeals to how individuals of the species make choices.

Normal domestication is an even more obvious example. A cow is, after all, a product of selection by the enviornment, which contains humans who intentionally bread it into livestock. I don't think there is good support for the claim that domestication is something totally new in the world, something unlike all prior evolution.

Intentionality plays a role in selection, but the selection process itself is initially not intentional. It is only intentional to the degree that life develops intentionality. Once that exists though, once a lifeform is using intentional problem solving to decide how to survive and who to mate with, then evolution is necessarily bound up with intentionality. In evolutionary game theory, we generally don't think the "players," know that they are in the game. In general, the "player" is more apt to represent the species than individuals in any case. And yet, obviously, at some point in the evolution of hominids the players very much did begin to recognize some elements of the game. "Like father like son," is appears to have been recognized by humans from at least the birth of domestication.


But the above gets at another point: if they player is the species, why do we only look at individuals for intentionality. The problem here is that information theoretic, computational theories in biology have been hugely successful. They can also show us how complex systems like an ant hive work like a "group mind," allowing for complex decision making processes, the sort of thing we associate with intentionality. No one ant knows what the hive is doing, but it's also not like any one neuron knows what the brain is doing, so objections based on that point seem libel to appealing to Cartesian Homunculi to explain intentionality.

The problem then is that the same sort of complex sample space search/ terraced deep scan and informational processes that we use to understand the brain, what we think to be the seat of intentionality, also are at work in ant hives, but ALSO work for large sets of individuals undergoing selection. E.g., lymphocytes are often cited as an example of ways in which a selection based algorithims searches a sample space.

But Hebbian Fire Together Wire Together, a pillar of modern neuroscience, uses the same selection principles! Synapses and neurons survive based on interaction with the environment. Human development involved a process of massively overproducing neurons and then having them culled by selection. Yet we tend to think this sort of selection does indeed have a purpose, making an intelligent human, and does give rise to intentionality.

However, if this sort of goal oriented selection structure is acceptable to posit for the immune system, there is, prima facie, no reason to think it doesn't generalize to species. In which case, evolution absolutely can be goal driven, even when we're talking about unicellular organisms (or members of an immune system). So, we come full circle.

Where does intentionality start and end? If we appeal only to complexity and amount of information processed then species should be MORE conscious than individuals.

But this is also a field were there is fierce controversy raging.

In 2014, eight scientists took up this challenge, publishing an article in the leading journal Nature that asked “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Their answer was: “Yes, urgently.” Each of the authors came from cutting-edge scientific subfields, from the study of the way organisms alter their environment in order to reduce the normal pressure of natural selection – think of beavers building dams – to new research showing that chemical modifications added to DNA during our lifetimes can be passed on to our offspring. The authors called for a new understanding of evolution that could make room for such discoveries. The name they gave this new framework was rather bland – the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) – but their proposals were, to many fellow scientists, incendiary...

By building statistical models of animal populations that accounted for the laws of genetics and mutation, the modern synthesists showed that, over long periods of time, natural selection still functioned much as Darwin had predicted. It was still the boss. In the fullness of time, mutations were too rare to matter, and the rules of heredity didn’t affect the overall power of natural selection. Through a gradual process, genes with advantages were preserved over time, while others that didn’t confer advantages disappeared.

Rather than getting stuck into the messy world of individual organisms and their specific environments, proponents of the modern synthesis observed from the lofty perspective of population genetics. To them, the story of life was ultimately just the story of clusters of genes surviving or dying out over the grand sweep of evolutionary time...

The case for EES rests on a simple claim: in the past few decades, we have learned many remarkable things about the natural world – and these things should be given space in biology’s core theory. One of the most fascinating recent areas of research is known as plasticity, which has shown that some organisms have the potential to adapt more rapidly and more radically than was once thought. Descriptions of plasticity are startling, bringing to mind the kinds of wild transformations you might expect to find in comic books and science fiction movies.

Emily Standen is a scientist at the University of Ottawa, who studies Polypterus senegalus, AKA the Senegal bichir, a fish that not only has gills but also primitive lungs. Regular polypterus can breathe air at the surface, but they are “much more content” living underwater, she says. But when Standen took Polypterus that had spent their first few weeks of life in water, and subsequently raised them on land, their bodies began to change immediately. The bones in their fins elongated and became sharper, able to pull them along dry land with the help of wider joint sockets and larger muscles. Their necks softened. Their primordial lungs expanded and their other organs shifted to accommodate them. Their entire appearance transformed. “They resembled the transition species you see in the fossil record, partway between sea and land,” Standen told me. According to the traditional theory of evolution, this kind of change takes millions of years. But, says Armin Moczek, an extended synthesis proponent, the Senegal bichir “is adapting to land in a single generation”. He sounded almost proud of the fish.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

Point being life seems to explore the sample space of possible "solutions" in a multi leveled way displaying fractal recurrence, and computationally. Looking only at individuals or DNA misses a huge amount of how species actually evolve.

Again, I'm not suggesting life is necessarily intentional in evolution. If anything, this shows that there may be serious problems with computational theories of the emergence of intentionality because it seems to make "species," to the extent they exist, as intentional as many fairly complex individual animals, if not more intentional. So either intentionality doesn't just result from "really complex, goal oriented computation," or it is somehow limited by having to be computation that occurs in a certain physical substrate, or, species ARE intelligent and we just don't see it because their "thoughts" take thousands of years.

Maybe the latter isn't as implausible as it sounds. We completely missed all the amazing problem solving power and intelligence plants demonstrate for a long time simply because they move to slow for the time scales we evolved to pay attention to.

This state of affairs will lead logically to an ever, upwardly-evolving teleology that, after enough time, will resemble a cosmic teleology that can, with reason, be called a creator. — ucarr

Not sure what you mean by "a creator" here. It certainly can't mean "the creator of the universe".

Indeed. But I do think there is a troubling tendency to try to divorce evolution from all intentionality. I had to spend a very long time explaining to someone reviewing a paper I wrote why it is that natural selection, as applied to corporations, languages, elements of states, people groups, etc. can absolutely involve intentionality. It's like, somewhere along the line, to avoid mistakes about inserting intentionality into places it doesn't belong, a dogma was created that natural selection necessarily can't involve intentionality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But the examples you mention above, corporations, languages(at least those used by humans and human made machines), people groups (I am not sure what 'elements of states,' refers to), involves intelligent human design, so yes, they would involve intent but I am unfamiliar with any compelling scientific evidence that there is correlation between such examples and natural selection.
Evolution is merely a measure of, or a record of, how species have changed over time. Natural selection is also just a measure of which species survived environmental change, and why. I cannot perceive any intent in those measures.

Obviously, people choose who they mate with based on intentional decisions though. Many animals are also picky about who they mate with. They also only mate if they survive and they only survive based on intentional choices they make. Intentional choices change the environment which in turn affects future selection pressures — Count Timothy von Icarus

The choices made are often bad ones or unfortunate ones or are purely based on instinctive imperatives, rather than intellect, and so many individuals don't survive. There is no intent in that system, random happenstance and a measure of fortune/luck, that individuals made the correct 'instinctive' move, in a given scenario, is a matter of probability and circumstance and not intent.

Processes like self-domestication, particularly the high levels of self-domestication that humans enacted upon themselves, don't make sense without appeals to how individuals of the species make choices. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't get your point here. Such choices have nothing to do with evolution or natural selection imo. As soon as individual intent becomes the controlling mechanism over such as purely instinctive reactions, natural selection gets replaced with intelligent design/intent. Natural selection does not terminate completely but its role is much reduced.

Normal domestication is an even more obvious example. A cow is, after all, a product of selection by the enviornment, which contains humans who intentionally bread it into livestock. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again you yourself highlight human design and intent, taking over from natural selection in the case of cows, dogs, cats etc. From Fauna Facts:
Cows are not man-made, but their evolution has been heavily influenced by humankind. Although cows originally existed naturally in the wild, the first cows were nothing like the cows we see today. Humans have shaped cows to be as useful as possible for us over the centuries, creating hundreds of unique and specialized cow breeds.
This is human intelligent design, no natural selection involved, only human artificial selection, which indeed has intent.

Intentionality plays a role in selection, but the selection process itself is initially not intentional. It is only intentional to the degree that life develops intentionality. Once that exists though, once a lifeform is using intentional problem solving to decide how to survive and who to mate with, then evolution is necessarily bound up with intentionality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The underlined words are where we differ I think. Evolution is very very slow. As soon as a lifeform demonstrates intent as a consequence of being self-aware, conscious and intelligent, rather than a creature driven via pure instinct imperative only, then at that point, intelligent design reduces evolution to a very minor side show for such individuals. It then becomes much more possible that such individuals can make themselves extinct before natural selection or environmental happenstance does.
A big rock from space could still always send the Earth back to a molten mess and evolution and natural selection would be back to square 1 and become the only game in town again as far as an abiogenysis or panspermia event to spark any new flora and fauna, happening on Earth.

The rest of your very interesting post, attempts to evidence the proposal that evolution and natural selection, still plays a very significant role in how a species will develop, after it has gained the ability to demonstrate meaning, purpose and intent to the level that human beings currently can. I remain unconvinced (but I am still open to the idea, as my main expertise lies in Computing Science only) that is true.

Is it for humans, or for viruses too?

The thesis remains unclear, and prima facie incoherent. — Banno

Humans are my primary focus regarding internalized intentions & teleology. However, yes, I claim all living organisms exemplify internalized intentions & teleology (surviving, eating, excreting, reproducing). The spectrum of this internalization therefore runs the gamut from humans (and, of course, possible beyond-humans) down to viruses.

Internalization of intentions & teleology by sentient life is a core component of my thesis. I'm claiming the intentions and the organized designs to make specific things happen according to a plan, i.e., according to a premeditated purpose, gets instantiated within the universe by means of living organisms.

An important difference between my thesis and theism is the fact I posit intentions and teleology within nature, whereas theism posits this rational couplet beyond nature as in the super-natural.

I don't think my thesis makes a claim about super-natural teleology one way or the other.

These are good points, I will try to provide a bit more evidence.

I don't get your point here. Such choices have nothing to do with evolution or natural selection imo. As soon as individual intent becomes the controlling mechanism over such as purely instinctive reactions, natural selection gets replaced with intelligent design/intent. Natural selection does not terminate completely but its role is much reduced.

This is human intelligent design, no natural selection involved, only human artificial selection, which indeed has intent.

I guess this is a point of disagreement: deciding that human-informed selection is somehow "unnatural" seems entirely arbitrary to me. The human is part of the natural environment of the wolf or the aurochs, and mutualism is hardly unique to humans, nor does self-domestication appear to only occur in the context of mutualistic relations with humans (e.g., bonobos, elephants, etc.), and yet these processes are based on social relations between animals. Such a view also seems to ignore the fact that many domestic animals appear to have started their road to domestication on their own initiative, domesticating themselves by coming into a mutualistic relationship with hominids, hanging around their camps waiting for food scraps.

For example, we don't think a human one day decided "wow, that cat is pretty, I shall tame it." Rather, the cats flocked to human settlements to live off the pests that thrived there, and the humans let them do so because our capacity for empathy can extend to other species and because the pests were harmful parasites- mutalism. The domestication of wolves is thought to have started in a similar way, based on the initiative of both species. Was the human part of this relation unnatural design and the feline role natural selection?

And where do we draw the line on natural and unnatural selection? Megafauna began going extinct left and right with the spread of hominids. Is this natural selection? But what then of the intentionality involved? Our distant ancestors seem to show plenty of intentionality; they bury their dead, make art, and appear to imbue both these practices with religious intent. Nor is this behavior, or tool making, limited to homo sapiens. Neither does it really take off in complexity with homo sapiens; behaviorally modern humans come long after humanity.

This is interesting in the case of dangerous game because the fact that humans hunt dangerous game ritualistically seems to be endemic. Men often "become men" in hunter gatherer societies when they take part in successful kills of the local dangerous megafauna- but then the drive to extinction is in part something quite intentional. But this extinction wave begins before homo sapiens and might have a similar causal mechanism in earlier hominids.

But the examples you mention above, corporations, languages(at least those used by humans and human made machines), people groups (I am not sure what 'elements of states,' refers to), involves intelligent human design, so yes, they would involve intent but I am unfamiliar with any compelling scientific evidence that there is correlation between such examples and natural selection.
Evolution is merely a measure of, or a record of, how species have changed over time. Natural selection is also just a measure of what species survived environmental change, and why. I cannot perceive any intent in those measures.

I think the mistake is to think of natural selection as only occurring in life. It doesn't; the concept is heavily employed in physics for non-living systems, in computer science, and a host of other areas. For example, we can see natural selection at work in the evolution of self-replicating silicone crystals, a non-living system. Indeed, one theory of abiogenesis is that such crystals were actually the scaffolding for early life, protecting RNA from the environment in a commensalism or mutualist (metabolic processes helped crystal fitness) relationship.

Natural selection occurs across far from equilibrium dynamical systems, not just those that are "living" (a poorly defined term in any event).

Previously, talk of natural selection affecting the development of languages., corporations, states., etc. was seen as a sort of loose analogy. However, more recently, information theoretic approaches in the empirical sciences have supported the contention that natural selection is also an essential concept for understanding the evolution of these higher-level entities (or at the very least, said contention is alive and well in the empirical sciences). And indeed, we see natural selection at workwithin a given lifeform, e.g. lymphocytes, neurons, etc. and at work abstractly in the success of "genetic algorithms."

That is, what was once thought to be something unique to life is now recognized to be a special case of a more general principle; exactly what we hope to find in science. Hence, Dennett's appeal to natural selection as a more parsimonious solution to any evidence of "design," ala "Darwin's universal acid." To my mind though, the mistake has been to dogmatically assert that intentionality plays no role in any of this, as a rule.

If computation gives rise to intentionality, then these complex computational processes can, perhaps, exhibit a sort of intentionality.

The choices made are often bad ones or unfortunate ones or are purely based on instinctive imperatives, rather than intellect, and so many individuals don't survive. There is no intent in that system, random happenstance and a measure of fortune/luck, that individuals made the correct 'instinctive' move, in a given scenario, is a matter of probability and circumstance and not intent.

All our choices are based on instinct. All our perceptions, thoughts, emotions, are grounded in what we are; there is no "man in the abstract." If being guided by instincts and shaped by evolution makes something non-intentional than intentionality cannot exist. If I cook because I'm hungry, that doesn't mean there is no intention behind what I do. Indeed, it seems like instinct, goals, are essential for the creation of intent.

Discussions of birth control, the problems of falling birth rates in elites, etc. go back to early antiquity across a range of cultures. I don't see how this doesn't bespeak intentionality.

The underlined words are where we differ I think. Evolution is very very slow

But this is no longer common opinion in biology. The article I posted was about the war being waged over just this fact.

The London Underground has not been around that long but the mosquitos that infest it have become a new species that will not mate with the species they descended from.

We have speciation occurring in two generations in one example. Bacteria can evolve resistances to antibiotics and antiseptics in a few days under the right conditions. Biologists also no longer agree that the Central Dogma holds; it's a point of contention. Changes in an organism's lifetime can demonstrably affect their offspring's traits, the big question is how much this should inform the received view on evolution as a whole.

And in any event, natural selection doesn't only occur in biology.

As soon as a lifeform demonstrates intent as a consequence of being self-aware, conscious and intelligent, rather than a creature driven via pure instinct imperative only, then at that point, intelligent design reduces evolution to a very minor side show for such individuals

But this would seem to imply that humans aren't the result of natural selection as respects many of their recent ancestors, since hominids appear to have had intentionality.

I will attempt a response to your recent post on this thread tomorrow Count Icarus as it's Friday, it's 4:30pm here and It's beer and good cheer time! Cheers fur noo!

Enjoy!

It did also occur to me that the possibility of extra terrestrial life is relevant here. If life exists elsewhere, it might not look anything like life here. It might not use DNA, RNA, the same amino acids, etc. Maybe it's more likely to be carbon based, but it's unclear if this is necessary either.

But then can we really define life as a certain type of chemical process? This IMO, gives weight to the computational, information theoretic view of life, which then allows "life" to simultaneously become perhaps a less meaningful term but also something that might elucidate more about a wider range of phenomena.

↪ucarr I'm interested and forgive me if this is obvious, do you subscribe to any form of theism? Do you beleive that the universe is a created artefact by some kind of deity?

So by your argument above, a 'god' figure is an inevitability, built into the fabric of reality? Does this not mean that god is contingent and not a necessary being? If we temporarily set aside your argument, have you got a tentative backstory for why this is the case or what the meaning of all this might be? — Tom Storm

Good job, Tom. You're getting right down to cases.

I do subscribe to theism, although I'm in terrible standing with theists due to a variety of my positions as, for example, this particular claim overall. As you might see in my response to Banno, I posit intentions and teleology within nature instead of positing same within super-nature.

Do I figure God-like consciousness is inevitable? I'll give you a qualified "yes." My addition to the evolution_teleology debate, as I see it, takes recourse to the Touring palliative regarding possible sources of consciousness. If an A.I. looks, acts, achieves and feels like organic consciousness to natural, organic consciousness, i.e., humans, then humans should, upon advisement, regard it as such.

Central to this rationale is the POV of the supplicant vis-a-vis the higher power. If we humans should suddenly be confronted by sentience billions of years beyond us, cognitively speaking, would we fall down in worship? Probably. The smartest humans would, however, resist this. Over time, this resistance would build to a rebellion and claimants would begin telling tales wherein they pulled the curtain on the midget wizard (of Oz) falsely intoning commands as if a giant.

Does this not sound like Tevye shaking his fist up at (silent) God? Does this not sound like Galileo called before the Catholic tribunal?

Imagine that eons ago, an advanced race of sentients developed the self-sustaining technology we now, eons later, understand to be nature and the natural world. Also imagine that back in antiquity, when the self-sustaining technology was first introduced, there was a prior natural world now replicated by the nature-appearing technology of the advanced race of sentients. The replication wasn't exact, however. The gap, easily detectable, was scorned by the mavens of the prior natural world. How was this friction resolved? It was resolved via the Touring palliative. The elder mavens settled into an edgy acceptance of the new quasi-nature. Eventually these elders died off and succeeding generations only saw a natural world.

Some implications of my position here, because they suggest God is inevitable rather than seminal, sustain my abominable standing within theist sensibilities.

Do you beleive that the universe is a created artefact by some kind of deity? — Tom Storm

In the above quote, I think you intend to talk within the theist mode. I think, however, by positing God as as an artist who makes the universe as artifact, you parallel the rebellious mentality embodied within my little fable herein.

There's a lot of substance coupled with sagacious thinking packed into your statement. I won't try to address all of it.

Intentions and teleology are internal and essential to all forms of life. — ucarr

I find all teleological assignments to lifeforms implausible.
A wolf did not get sharp teeth because it needed them. The sharp teeth evolved not because of evolutionary intent, but due to the process of natural selection, working over a very long time. — universeness

The key word in my above quote is internal. It's the gist of my thesis. Intentions and teleology, essential to being alive, establishes them as being cognitive entities. Where there's life, there's intentions and teleology essential to the cerebration of the living organisms. The presence of this couplet runs the gamut from viruses to super-intelligent sentients.

This gamut, then, is the collective of intentions and teleology. Survival of the fittest within the circumambient environment demands ongoing adaptation. Ongoing adaptation, oftentimes improvisational, embodies and enacts what we refer to as intelligence. Intentions and teleology, therefore, are essentially cognitive. This means that cognitive intentions and teleology and environment are linked inextricably.

The wolf did not give himself sharp teeth; the collective gave him sharp teeth. The wolf, however, by using his sharp teeth, adds directed energy to the collective. This directed energy is better known as selection. The presence of wolves with sharp teeth selects those other animals who can survive the onslaughts of sharp teeth.

Useful genetic mutations, considered in isolation may appear to be random. Placed in context of a constantly changing environment, with a collective of intentions and teleology embodied in the animal kingdom, genetic mutations are contextually useful, and the process bringing this about is not random.

We know this process generating useful mutations is not random because living organisms, required to think to survive, do not indulge random behavior.

Indeed. But I do think there is a troubling tendency to try to divorce evolution from all intentionality. I had to spend a very long time explaining to someone reviewing a paper I wrote why it is that natural selection, as applied to corporations, languages, elements of states, people groups, etc. can absolutely involve intentionality. It's like, somewhere along the line, to avoid mistakes about inserting intentionality into places it doesn't belong, a dogma was created that natural selection necessarily can't involve intentionality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up:

This state of affairs will lead logically to an ever, upwardly-evolving teleology that, after enough time, will resemble a cosmic teleology that can, with reason, be called a creator.
— ucarr

Not sure what you mean by "a creator" here. It certainly can't mean "the creator of the universe". — Michael

Do I figure God-like consciousness is inevitable? I'll give you a qualified "yes." My addition to the evolution_teleology debate, as I see it, takes recourse to the Touring palliative regarding possible sources of consciousness. If an A.I. looks, acts, achieves and feels like organic consciousness to natural, organic consciousness, i.e., humans, then humans should, upon advisement, regard it as such. — ucarr

"Creator," in my context, means perceived "close simulation of 'creator of the universe.'"

As you may surmise, there's a lot of english-within-the-english within my context.