On 28 February 2010 17:38, Rex Allen <rexallen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> People believe and do all sorts of crazy things, as I'm sure you know. >> The psychological capacity for just about any possible behaviour is >> there, but the very maladaptive behaviours are rare. It's not that >> it's difficult to make an animal that does not feel hungry, it's just >> that these animals don't pass on their genes. Is that not a causal >> mechanism for evolution? > > Isn't there already a complete causal account at the level of quarks > and electrons and the fundamental forces that govern their > interactions, stretching back to the first instant of the universe, > for the existence and demise of any specific animal that doesn't feel > hunger? > > If this physics-based account is complete, then what does this extra > causal mechanism of evolution that you are proposing actually do? > Either evolution "really" does something - or it's just an imaginary > device that we've made up...a descriptive metaphorical narrative that > is broadly compatible with a Victorian conception of how the world is, > but which in itself doesn't actually explain anything.
I can say (a) I ate the sandwich because I was hungry; or (b) I ate the sandwich because signals from my hypothalamus acted on my motor cortex which then caused the muscles in my arms and jaws to contract in a certain coordinated way; or (c) I ate the sandwich because of the initial state of the universe plus the laws of physics. All these are valid explanations for why I ate the sandwich. The first two are explanations at a higher level of description than the last. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.