'Natural Selection' is likewise imbued with the attributes of agency — Wayfarer
On this, I agree; but I would like you to answer the further question: does this imply the presence of an agent? — Banno
Let me see if I understand your claim. We observe that living things act with purpose, but this does not provide us with what we need to conclude that living things act with purpose. Commonly called "the problem of induction". — Metaphysician Undercover
The evolutionary pull of survival — Hanover
But, then, I cannot escape the objection that there is no state of mind, however simple, which does not change every moment, since there is no consciousness without memory, and no continuation of a state without the addition, to the present feeling, of the memory of past moments. It is this which constitutes duration. Inner duration is the continuous life of a memory which prolongs the past into the present, the present either containing within it in a distinct form the ceaselessly growing image of the past, or, more profoundly, showing by its continual change of quality the heavier and still heavier load we drag behind us as we grow older. Without this survival of the past into the present there would be no duration, but only instantaneity. — Bergson
This leaves us with the question of where do the creations really come from. If the past consists of what is determined, in the sense of having real substantial existence, and the future consists of possibilities for creativity at the present, then the decisions as to what exactly is created at the present, from the possibilities which are proper to the future, must come from somewhere else. What exactly is a "decision"? — Metaphysician Undercover
You suggest that it does not, that a plant's growth has purpose, but no intent. I find that difficult to accept, as I see no other meaning to "purpose", except as an object to be attained. The object to be attained is what the thing intends. We could however, assume that "intent" refers to a special type of purpose, a type of purpose specific to conscious agents, so that "intent" implies "purpose", but "purpose" does not imply "intent". — Metaphysician Undercover
It's purpose is survival, which is the purpose of all living things, and is the basis for evolution theories. — Hanover
One might argue that "survival" is the ultimate end, but the reality of death, reproduction, evolution, and the endeavours of the conscious mind, make it highly unlikely that survival is the ultimate end of the biological organism. — Metaphysician Undercover
↪Banno I’m not arguing for ‘a grand desinger’, a super-agent. The mere fact of intentional action, of agents who act for purposes, is what is not accounted for in a lot of current philosophy of biology. My feeling is, that we believe this is something that is understood when actually it’s not. — Wayfarer
We observe that living things act with purpose, but this does not provide us with what we need to conclude that living things act with purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover
Rather, we observe that living things act with purpose, but this does not provide us with what we need to conclude that evolution acts with purpose. — Banno
Does the presence of a purpose imply the presence of an agent? — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.