[lit-ideas] Re: CymaGlyphs, holographic bubbles, & dolphin-speak...

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 12:29:26 +0000 (GMT)

--- On Fri, 2/1/09, Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: CymaGlyphs, holographic bubbles, & dolphin-speak...
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Friday, 2 January, 2009, 4:57 PM
> DMcE:
> >>Next (evolutionary?) step: insofar as brain mass
> develops outside the confines of the ratio needed to deal
> with relative body mass (and merely physiological
> functions), can't this nevertheless be understood as a
> response to certain evolutionary pressures or
> "needs"? My understanding of evolution is that the
> answer here is 'yes' not 'no': and so I
> remain curious about the 'understanding' that
> suggests otherwise.<<
> 
> No, it cannot be so understood.  There are no pressures or
> needs or purpose driving evolution. 

Here, Mike, you begin to dive off the deep end. I don't in this post ever use 
the term "purpose", nor nevertheless imply (evolutionary) "pressures" or 
"needs" do imply "purpose" (in a _teleological_ sense, for example; in other 
non-teleological senses, they might well imply "purpose" e.g. 'relative to 
successful outcome'). 

Is evolution, in neo-Darwinian terms, nevertheless - and despite your use of 
"purpose" in a way quite irrelevant to the terms of my post - explicable (at 
least in part*) as a series of responses to (evolutionary) "needs" and 
"pressures"? Yes, or so I (along with Darwin, Popper etc.) essentially 
maintain.  

* It may be noted that the explanation can only, logically, be _in part_, 
because _only if_ selection pressures worked to the finest, determined detail 
could neo-Darwinism explain evolution fully:- whereas not only can one 
reconcile neo-Darwinism with lack of full explanation one can see, via the role 
of contingency (in, for example, ever-if-slow-changing mutations
set against ever-if-slow-changing 'selection pressures', neither of which kinds 
of change are ever entirely predictable), how neo-Darwinism might lend itself 
to a view of the universe as indeterministic, 'open' and capable of improvement 
(at least, for example, in the hands of a brilliant and profound thinker like 
Popper).

> Evolution is accidental
> change to the genetic structure of an organism that, if
> beneficial to the survival of the organism, comes to
> dominance in the species through inheritance of the
> survivors' genome.  

This is not bad (by and large**), but should be understood crucially where 
"beneficial" = "beneficial given the prevailing selection pressures" (which are 
themselves subject to other selection pressures, and change). 

**We can deliberately, or accidentally, alter genetic structure through 
radiation (think Hiroshima, and the 'birth defects' thereafter - results that 
might be described as those of radiation on the gene structure).

>Evolution is neither Lamarckism nor
> Intelligent Design.  I know that you know this, but it makes
> mad as hell when people, writing of evolution, write
> statements that could be construed to imply that
> evolutionary change happens for a purpose.  

And me mad as hell-ish when some puffed-up Memphisian pamphleteerer implies 
that I implied evolution has a 'telelogical' purpose: whereas that evolution is 
a product of "purpose" in some other sense is left quite open, actually.

>Larger brain
> mass compared to body mass is not the result of a
> 'need' "for higher intelligence", it's
> a typo on the part of mitosis. 

There is no teleological need for "higher intelligence", according to 
neo-Darwinism (perhaps); yet "higher intelligence" might well have, in 
accordance with neo-Darwinism, an evolutionary advantage - particularly in a 
world of ever-changing selection-pressures. 

Put another way: "higher intelligence", without design, is a fact and is a fact 
consistent with neo-Darwinism and one that can be (partially) explained within 
a neo-D framework. No?

> Higher intelligence is a
> by-product of faulty genetic processing or of damaged goods.

Ah, hypocrisy! By what standard "faulty" or "damaged" if not a teleological 
one? All genetic evolution is a product of 'imperfect cloning' as it were 
(therein lies part of the Darwinian answer to why self-cloning species are far 
outnumbered by species that reproduce by mixing and matching their genetic 
material). If so, what is "faulty" or "damaged" by this, especially given the 
ever-changing (if slow-changing) evolutionary reality?

>  If there's anything that can be remotely thought of as
> a kind of driving force behind evolution, it is the
> 'laws' of molecular attraction.  Given certain
> molecules, they more often than not combine in such and such
> a way just because that's the downhill way.  Life, like
> me, follows the law of least exertion.

This last bit is (and you know it) just bollix. 

Btw, how many have read and digested D.T. Campbell's paper in Popper's 
_Schilpp_ volume? I bet no academic philosopher on this list ever puts it on a 
relevant reading list (they will, small-mindedly, use dismissive criteria of 
"relevance" to decide it is not relevant: it is in fact relevant to, and should 
be seen as seminal in, any field of philosophy; but no, let's not deal with the 
real s___, let's waffle on in our small-minded, self-serving, mutually 
appreciative ways).

Hey ho. 

Donal
Gearing up for a Popper vs. Campbell debate
Those interested might start with Campbell's paper in Popper's _Schilpp_ volume 
and Popper's reply
Those not interested? Why pretend you are really interested in 'philosophy', 
'the theory of knowledge', 'evolution' etc. and how these might be related?
Unafraid to enter the field of Wittgensteinian exegesis: waiting patiently for 
those prepared to read Campbell and Popper's reply and to comment.



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2009