You're not following the conversation.

To reiterate, I am asking you to support the claim made here:

And yet it follows that if the world is truly generated from a personal viewpoint, then there has to be some reasonable account of why that isn't the case. — apokrisis

You made this statement unsupported. So why is it, then, that an idealist position commits one to needing an explanation as to why the world does not do whatever one wants it to? Even with things ontic realists readily admit are mind dependent, like dreams, no one thinks this is the case. So there seems to be no reason for this position, without another premise you're relying on.

Sorry, did I miss the bit where you explained why it wouldn't be more parsimonious if wishes were indeed horses for idealists?

What you can take the old transcendental idealists to be saying is that roughly, life is like a video game in this way. The sense in which the unseen world is 'there' is the sense in which the material off the right side of the screen is 'there. — The Great Whatever

Yes, Michael could have been talking about Kant when he said...

Personally I think at first glance it's an elegant union of realism and idealism, gaining from their respective strong points and accounting for their respective weak points. — Michael

You're missing the point, which is that you are wanting to draw an analogy between reality and a computer program, but unwilling to acknowledge that the most significant thing about a computer program is that it has been intentionally programmed to be the way it is.

Algorithms in computer programs are created by programmers. If you posit there might be an algorithm that determines that when we dug somewhere we find fossils, implying that those fossils in no way existed prior to our digging, then your position requires an explanation for the existence of the algorithm. — John

If I were Darwin, using breeding as an analogy to explain evolution, would I have to commit to there being a Great Breeder in the Sky?

And how is positing an algorithm that determines what we see when we dig any different to a physical law that determines what a particle will do when it interacts with another particle (or, more relevantly, what I will see when the rods and cones in my eyes interact with electromagnetic radiation)?

You're inconsistently applying the Watchmaker argument.

You're not understanding me.

And not caring either. You are playing the same old tunes I see.

Selective breeding's a very poor analogy for Darwinian evolution...and the world ain't like a watch either...
:-}

Not to derail the discussion, but why do you think selective breeding is a very poor analogy?

I say that because selective breeding involves very definite purposes that determine changes, whereas the Darwinian model posits a complete lack of purpose.

The converse question would be 'why would anyone think selective breeding is a good analogy?'.

Yes, but the analogy takes account of that. Whereas the selection of the traits you want in your pigeons is deliberate, the selection that drives evolution more generally is not directed, i.e., it is natural selection. One can see why Darwin thought it was a good analogy despite this fundamental difference.

Sure, but I'm not convinced that 'selection' is the right idea in relation to Darwin's Evolution, it is somewhat misleadingly oriented toward some notion of telos, which the model also wants to deny. I think it must have already been obvious to intelligent people long before Darwin that organisms that are more suitably equipped to survive in particular environments will be more likely to survive.

Darwin denied that the adaptations of organisms to environments can be inherited. That is no longer acceptable dogma due to developments in the understanding of epigenetics, but anyway, that is another story.

According to Neo Darwinism the mutations that lead to anatomical and physiological changes that bestow advantageous surviveability are utterly random. (This idea is also under question, not least because of the difficulty of defining what 'random' actually means in this context, but again that is another story). The point is that it is here, with this notion of 'randomness', that the analogy with selective breeding fails, because the changes brought about in the lattere are very carefully planned.

No, the analogy does not fail, because while the mutations themselves may appear randomly, those which bestow advantages do so owing to the conditions, whether they be imposed by human preference or by nature. The mutations that a human breeder selects from are random too. The idea is not that selection is random, but that mutations are random.

And this is the purest anachronism:

I think it must have already been obvious to intelligent people long before Darwin that organisms that are more suitably equipped to survive in particular environments will be more likely to survive. — John

No, the randomness, or non-randomness, of the mutations is not the salient issue.

The analogy doesn't hold because in the case of selective breeding there is no question of survival advantage but merely of which animals are chosen to breed. So the direction of the breeding program is foreordained and this is not analogous with the Darwinian model where there is no goal.

I certainly don't think it is an instructive or useful analogy. Sure, animals suited to survive survive, and animals with characteristics suitable for the goal of breeding are selected for breeding, if you want to say that is the substance of the analogy, then fine, but it is fairly trivial and it doesn't tell us anything much. If you disagree, can you say what you think the analogy actually shows us, that we didn't already know?

Of course you are free to think of it as a good analogy, if that is your wont; it is, after all, in the final analysis, merely a matter of interpretation.

This doesn't hold because in the case of selective breeding there is no question of survival advantage but merely of which animals are chosen to breed. So the direction of the breeding program is foreordained and this is not analogous with the Darwinian model where there is no goal. — John

I have to pull you up on this John. You made a bad mistake in your last post, irrelevantly contrasting the randomness of mutations with the directedness of selective breeding, but you haven't owned up to it, and here you just return to your original position, which I already addressed.

I see why you don't like the analogy and I can appreciate that. After all, the very problem with it that you've pointed out can sometimes be slightly misleading for people getting to grips with evolution, especially if they don't study it very deeply. Even so, it strikes me as the best analogy I have ever seen, and my suspicion is that those who treat it contemptuously--rather than critically--just don't really understand it.

But to answer your direct question: the analogy shows us that the traits that come to define species do so because the bearers of those traits survive to pass them on owing to their suitability to the conditions, i.e., the prevailing selection pressures. If you think this is trivial, you have the analogy to thank for that.

I have to pull you up on this John. You made a bad mistake in your last post, irrelevantly contrasting the randomness of mutations with the directedness of selective breeding, but you haven't owned up to it, and here you just return to your original position, which I already addressed. — jamalrob

I don't see that at all; I was contrasting the purposive selection of breeding with the (according to Darwin) non-purposive selection of evolution. If you think that I have said something which is "bad mistake" or which implies something I haven't "owned up to" then please point out the particular words you are referring to.

Also you're assertion that those who do not like the analogy do not understand is, frankly, insulting. I also don't think that what you claim the analogy shows is anything other than trivial because I think it is very implausible that intelligent people would not already, for thousands of years prior to Darwin, have understood very well that people and animals may be more or less well or ill suited to survive under different conditions.

If you think that I have said something which is "bad mistake" or which implies something I haven't "owned up to" then please point out the particular words you are referring to. — John

Here you bring up the contrast, not between the directedness of selective breeding and the blind process of natural selection, but between the directedness of selective breeding and the randomness of mutations:

The point is that it is here, with this notion of 'randomness', that the analogy with selective breeding fails, because the changes brought about in the lattere are very carefully planned. — John

And I've already explained why this is a mistake. Random mutations happen in both cases, and the difference is in how those mutations are selected, or if you prefer, how they come to survive and get passed on.

Also you're assertion that those who do not like the analogy do not understand is, frankly, insulting. I also don't think that what you claim the analogy shows is anything other than trivial because I think it is very implausible that intelligent people would not already, for thousands of years prior to Darwin, have understood very well that people and animals may be more or less well or ill suited to survive under different conditions. — John

That this was a fundamental mechanism of the creation of species, in the way that selective breeding is the mechanism of the creation of breeds, was utterly new to science and thought. Just what is it that you think Darwin actually discovered, if anything?

I'll reply in more detail later, as I am at work now, and even though I do have a bit of time to post due to weather conditions I am doing it on smart phone which is not ideal.

I was a bit hurriedly posting before as I should have been leaving for work and it appears I did erroneously run two ideas together which probably led to confusion.

I wanted to say that the changes brought about by environmental selection are random in the sense that they depend on contingent conditions whereas the changes brought about by selective breeding are not random in this sense but programmatic.

This is so regardless of whether the mutations that bring about the physiological changes are utterly random or not. To summarise, in the environmental selection case the physiological changes themselves are produced by random (contingent because purposeless) processes, whereas in the selective breeding case the physiological changes are very definitely directed towards an end.

Thanks for clarifying John (though I think you might be conflating the two concepts yet again in your last sentence).

I agree it's important to keep in mind that natural selection is not directed towards an end as it is in artificial selection, but that's kind of obvious if you pay attention to Darwin's argument and doesn't really detract from the power of the analogy. The point of it is that there are selection pressures influencing the distribution of traits in populations, leading to the formation of species in one case and breeds in the other--no matter whether those selection pressures are directed or not.

I reread what I wrote, but couldn't see anything which I thought should lead you to you think I have "conflated the two concepts yet again", I'd be interested to know, though.

I think the most significant aspect of Darwin's theory is the novel hypothesis regarding the origin of species, as you allude to. But again I would say there is really a dis-analogy with selective breeding, because the latter, although it may produce truly remarkable morphological differences (think of dogs) it has never resulted in the formation of any new species. You can mate a Chihuahua with an St Bernard, and the result will be a reproductively viable offspring
canine.

I don't want to boringly repeat myself, but I think the idea that "selection pressures influencing the distribution of traits in populations" would have long been well understood because the heredity of traits had long been acknowledged (selective animal breeding likely goes back thousands of years) and it is an obvious step from what would have been the common observation that unfit animals are less likely to survive, to the idea that if you don't survive long enough you won't reproduce and pass on your heritable traits.

In short, I think Darwin's ideas, although quite clever, are overrated, unless you count the extent of his influence as a criterion for judging their quality. I think the extent of his influence, though, is due to the fact that his ideas have been overrated.

I reread what I wrote, but couldn't see anything which I thought should lead you to you think I have "conflated the two concepts yet again", I'd be interested to know, though. — John

Here:

To summarise, in the environmental selection case the physiological changes themselves are produced by random (contingent because purposeless) processes, whereas in the selective breeding case the physiological changes are very definitely directed towards an end. — John

You're contrasting physiological changes that occur in nature with those that occur in selective breeding. You say the former are "produced by random processes", but the latter are "directed towards an end".

If "produced by random processes" you're referring to mutations, then you're attempting to draw the distinction I criticized earlier (in summary, my criticism is that because random mutations are equally important in both cases, your distinction is a category error). But if you're referring to selection itself as somehow random, then you're wrong about: natural selection is not random. Or maybe you don't really mean random but just mean to emphasize the blind, purposeless nature of natural selection, in contrast to directedness, in which case we've already been through that: yes, because of this difference the analogy is slightly misleading if you take it to imply a guiding hand, but so long as we keep this in mind the analogy works well.

So you're doing at least one of these: conflating randomness with purposelessness, conflating mutations with selection, repeating yourself, or making the basic mistake of thinking that evolution is random. But it's difficult to know for sure because it's not clear what you're trying to say.

I don't want to boringly repeat myself, but I think the idea that "selection pressures influencing the distribution of traits in populations" would have long been well understood because the heredity of traits had long been acknowledged (selective animal breeding likely goes back thousands of years) and it is an obvious step from what would have been the common observation that unfit animals are less likely to survive, to the idea that if you don't survive long enough you won't reproduce and pass on your heritable traits. — John

If you think the basic idea of natural selection was obvious and unoriginal, then I'm not surprised you think Darwin is overrated. But you're simply wrong, notwithstanding your vague feeling that it's been known about for centuries. Just because you think it's obvious doesn't mean it has always been obvious.

You're contrasting physiological changes that occur in nature with those that occur in selective breeding. You say the former are "produced by random processes", but the latter are "directed towards an end". — jamalrob

Yes, that's exactly right; the former are produced by random (in the sense of 'not deliberate or not purposive' processes). Whether natural processes are really random or deterministic is a separate question.

If "produced by random processes" you're referring to mutations, then you're attempting to draw the distinction I criticized earlier (in summary, random mutations are equally important in both cases so the distinction is a category error).[/quote

But I already said I didn't mean to be referring to mutations, but rather to the processes of selection. As you already pointed out, and I agreed, the processes of mutation, irrespective of whether they are random of not, are the same in both cases.

But if you're referring to selection itself as somehow random, then you're wrong about: natural selection is not random. Or maybe you don't really mean random but just mean to emphasize the blind, purposeless nature of natural selection, in contrast to directedness, in which case we've already been through that: yes, because of this difference the analogy is slightly misleading if you take it to imply a guiding hand, but so long as we keep this in mind the analogy works well.

Natural selection is random in the sense I have been using, as I explained above. Of course it is not random insofar as fit animals always tend to survive better than unfit animals; and if it was random in this connection then there would be no such pattern of events. I don't know why you would think it is possible I was making a claim as obviously implausible as that. I do mean random in the sense of "the blind purposeless nature of ( Darwin's model of) natural selection". But I have already explained that several times. I'm still not convinced that, as you say, the analogy works well; I have already explained why I think the part of it that does make sense is fairly trivial, and you have given me no good reason to change my mind on that. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

So you're doing at least one of these: conflating randomness with purposelessness, conflating mutations with selection, repeating yourself, or making the basic mistake of thinking that evolution is random. But it's difficult to know for sure because it's not clear what you're trying to say.

I am not conflating randomness with purposelessness, but I was using it to mean that. This is a perfectly acceptable way to use the word. Random behavior is purposeless behavior, for example. I am not conflating mutations with selection, as I have already explained. I am repeating myself, since I have already explained. I have also tried to make it very clear what I have been trying to say; I don't expect you to agree, but I think there is no reason why you should not understand what I have been saying, however unfounded you might think it is.

Are you claiming that people had not known about heritable traits for centuries, if not millennia before Darwin? How long do you think selective animal breeding has been going on? Are you claiming that people would not have noticed that unfit animals tend to be less likely to survive than fit animals? The (I think fairly uncontroversial) claims that people had known about heritable traits and that they had noticed the tendency of less fit animals to fail to survive more often than fit ones are the basis of my "baseless intuition".

If you are not claiming either of these then what do you think is the significant advance in thinking Darwin made other than his conjecture about the origin of species (which is irrelevant to any analogy with selective breeding, since the latter does not produce species change so far as is known)?

Are you claiming that people had not known about heritable traits for centuries, if not millennia before Darwin? How long do you think selective animal breeding has been going on? Are you claiming that people would not have noticed that unfit animals tend to be less likely to survive than fit animals? The (I think fairly uncontroversial) claims that people had known about heritable traits and that they had noticed the tendency of less fit animals to fail to survive more often than fit ones are the basis of my "baseless intuition". — John

Even if people did know about these, it doesn't amount to the concept of natural selection. So I see no basis here at all.

If you are not claiming either of these then what do you think is the significant advance in thinking Darwin made other than his conjecture about the origin of species (which is irrelevant to any analogy with selective breeding, since the latter does not produce species change so far as is known)? — John

The advance is natural selection:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I think I already understand the idea of natural selection. (I've read some of Dawkins and Gould and even read Origin of Species many years ago) so I don't want to spend time reading wiki. It is basically the idea that animals more suited to environments are more likely to survive and reproduce, and pass on their traits, and this leads to changes within species and even to new species (when there has been sufficient geographical isolation of populations) isn't it? If there is something more that you think is of significance you could just tell me. I'm here to engage with you, not to read Wiki.

I think I already understand the idea of natural selection. [...] — John

Yes that's pretty much the idea. Now we're left with your claim that the analogy with selective breeding is very poor, and your claim that natural selection is a trivial idea that was known about long before Darwin. Questioning the first claim I've tried to show that the analogy is a good one, but I haven't convinced you. I don't know what to do about the other claim except direct you to learn about the history of evolutionary thought, hence the link.

I think I've said all I can, so I'll duck out now and maybe the discussion will recover from this long digression. Sorry about that, Michael and others. :-#

Just to clear up a point I'm not claiming that the very specific idea of natural selection was formulated as such before Darwin, just that the common knowledge about variability and heritability make the leap to the idea of natural selection not all that surprisingly original.

In any case I don't think the digression has been irrelevant to the OP, because I think the purported analogy between reality and a computer program suffers much the same problem as that between natural selection and selective breeding insofar as the most significant defining thing about a computer program is that it is programmed, just as the most significant defining thing about a breeding program is that it is programmed. In Michael's view reality is not programmed, just as according to the Darwinian model natural selection is not programmed, and that is why I say they are both alike in being actually more significantly disanalogous than analogous with their purported analogues.