On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:48:31 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Hi Telmo,
>
> I agree with everything you said. However, a goal is something that can 
> only be formulated in some kind of mind - it's a mental construct. So to 
> say "life has a goal" makes no sense, *except* as the implicit statement 
> that e.g. "we interpret that life's goal is to survive". All goals are 
> interpretations... e.g, "the goal of a thermostat is to regulate the 
> temperature" is still an interpretive statement, because there is a level 
> of description of a thermostat that is perfectly valid yet yields no 
> concept of regulation.
>

Exactly right. The difference between teleology and teleonomy (evolution) 
is that teleonomy is the accumulation of unintentional consequences. Even 
if the goal of life were to survive, that goal has nothing whatsoever to do 
with natural selection. I'm sure that the dinosaurs wanted to survive as 
much as the mammals who superseded them. 

Teleology is about initiating sequences and carrying them out voluntarily - 
sometimes in spite of consequences or in direct opposition to them. 
Teleology is the defiance of evolution - it is artificial selection over 
and above natural selection.

Craig


> So then the statement that "the goal of life is to survive" is ok... so 
> long as we acknowledge that goals are always in the mind of the 
> interpreter.  
>
> Terren
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> <te...@telmomenezes.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is what 
>>> the word means. And the goal of life is to survive.
>>> So evolution is teleological.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry but I don't agree that life or evolution have a goal. That would be 
>> a bit like saying that the goal of gravity is to attract chunks of matter 
>> to each other. You could instead see life as a process and evolution as a 
>> filter: some stuff continues to exist, other stuff doesn't. We can develop 
>> narratives on why that is: successful replication, good adaption to a 
>> biological niche and so on. But these narratives are all in our minds, we 
>> ourselves looking at it from inside of the process, if you will. From the 
>> outside, we are just experiencing the stuff that persists or, in other 
>> words, that went through the evolutionary filter at this point in time.
>>  
>>
>>>   
>>> In other words, life is intelligent.
>>>
>>
>> Suppose I postulate that the goal of stars is to emit light. Are they 
>> intelligent? If not why? What's the difference?
>>  
>>
>>>  
>>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] <javascript:>
>>> 12/12/2012 
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>  
>>>
>>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
>>> *Time:* 2012-12-11, 16:03:57
>>> *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and 
>>> emotional,brain study shows
>>>
>>>  On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:46:23 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona 
>>> wrote: 
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I  sent a search link for you to know the opinions about it.
>>>>
>>>> in EP this your example does not offer a clear hypothesis. But there 
>>>> are others that are evident.  It depends on the context. for example , 
>>>> woman have more accurate facial recognition habilities, but men perceive 
>>>> faster than women faces of angry men that are loking at him. I think that 
>>>> you can guess why.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's the guessing why which I find unscientific. It helps us feel that 
>>> we are very clever, but really it is a slippery slope into just-so story 
>>> land. There are some species where the females are more aggressive ( 
>>> http://www.culture-of-peace.info/biology/chapter4-6.html  ) - does that 
>>> mean that the females in those species will definitely show the reverse of 
>>> the pattern that you mention? Just the fact that some species have more 
>>> aggressive females than males should call into question any functionalist 
>>> theories based on gender, and if gender in general doesn't say anything 
>>> very reliable about psychology, then why should we place much value on any 
>>> of these kinds of assumptions.
>>>
>>> Evolution is not teleological, it is the opposite. Who we are is a 
>>> function of the specific experiences of specific individuals who were lucky 
>>> in specific circumstances. That's it. There's no explanatory power in 
>>> sweeping generalizations which credit evolution with particular 
>>> psychological strategies. Sometimes behaviors are broadly adaptive 
>>> species-wide, and sometimes they are incidental, and it is nearly 
>>> impossible to tell them apart, especially thousands of years after the fact.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>> The alignment detection is common in the animal kingdom: somethng that 
>>>> point at you may be a treat. it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are 
>>>>>> falsifiable<https://www.google.es/search?q=Craig%3A+The+evolutionary+Psychology+hypothesis+are+falsifiable&oq=Craig%3A+The+evolutionary+Psychology+hypothesis+are+falsifiable&aqs=chrome.0.57j58.640&sugexp=chrome,mod=2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=evolutionary+Psychology+hypotheses++falsifiable&oq=evolutionary+Psychology+hypotheses++falsifiable&gs_l=serp.3...8248.8713.5.9590.4.4.0.0.0.3.261.878.2-4.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.7ojIOs_e60Q&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=561e2e0a6415ac8d&bpcl=39650382&biw=1241&bih=584>
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>> Your link is just a Google search which shows that there is no 
>>>>> consensus on whether they are falsifiable. Why do you think that they are 
>>>>> falsifiable? I have made my case, given examples, explained why 
>>>>> evolutionary psych is so seductive and compulsive as a cognitive bias, 
>>>>> but 
>>>>> why am I wrong? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it this way. Let's say we are measuring the difference in how long 
>>>>> it takes to recognize a friend versus recognizing a stranger and we find 
>>>>> that there is a clear difference. Which would outcome would evolutionary 
>>>>> psych favor? I could argue that it is clearly more important to identify 
>>>>> a 
>>>>> stranger, as they may present a threat to our lives or an opportunity for 
>>>>> trade, security, information, etc. I could equally argue that it is 
>>>>> clearly 
>>>>> more important to identify a friend so that we reinforce the bonds of our 
>>>>> social group and foster deep interdependence. I could argue that there 
>>>>> should be no major difference between the times because they are both 
>>>>> important. I could argue that the times should vary according to context. 
>>>>> I 
>>>>> could argue that they should not vary according to context as these 
>>>>> functions must be processed beneath the threshold of conscious processing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolutionary Psychology assumptions can generate plausible 
>>>>> interpretations for any outcome after the fact and offers no particular 
>>>>> opinions before the fact, and that opens the door for at least ambiguous 
>>>>> falsifiability in many cases. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/11/30 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, November 30, 2012 3:37:35 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona 
>>>>>>> wrote: 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This speed in the evaluation is a consequence of evolutionary 
>>>>>>>> pressures: A teleological agent that is executing a violent plan 
>>>>>>>> against us 
>>>>>>>> is much more dangerous than a casual accident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if there are teleological agents in the first place. There are 
>>>>>>> some people around here who deny that free will is possible. They 
>>>>>>> insist 
>>>>>>> (though I am not sure how, since insisting is already a voluntary act) 
>>>>>>> that 
>>>>>>> our impression that we are agents who can plan and execute plans is 
>>>>>>> another 
>>>>>>> evolutionary consequence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with retrospective evolutionary psychology is that it is 
>>>>>>> unfalsifiable. Any behavior can be plugged into evolution and generate 
>>>>>>> a 
>>>>>>> just-so story from here to there. If the study showed just the opposite 
>>>>>>> - 
>>>>>>> that human beings can't tell the difference between acts of nature and 
>>>>>>> intentional acts, or that it is very slow, why that would make sense 
>>>>>>> too as 
>>>>>>> a consequence of evolutionary pressure as well. You would want to be 
>>>>>>> *sure* 
>>>>>>> that some agent is intentionally harming you lest you falsely turn on a 
>>>>>>> member of your own social group and find yourself cast out. This would 
>>>>>>> validate representational theories of consciousness too - of course it 
>>>>>>> would take longer to reason out esoteric computations of intention than 
>>>>>>> it 
>>>>>>> would take to recognize something so immediately important as being 
>>>>>>> able to 
>>>>>>> discern emotions in others face. That way you could see if someone was 
>>>>>>> angry before they actually started hitting you and have a survival 
>>>>>>> advantage. Evolutionary psychology is its own built in confirmation 
>>>>>>> bias. 
>>>>>>> Not that it has no basis in fact, of course it does, but I can see that 
>>>>>>> it 
>>>>>>> is psychology which is evolving, not evolution which is psychologizing.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> because the first will continue harming us, so a fast reaction 
>>>>>>>> against further damage is necessary, while in the case of an accident 
>>>>>>>> no 
>>>>>>>> stress response is necessary. (stress responses compromise long term 
>>>>>>>> health)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but it's simplistic. There are a lot of things in the 
>>>>>>> environment which are unintentional but continue to harm us which we 
>>>>>>> would 
>>>>>>> be better off developing a detector for. There is no limit to what 
>>>>>>> evolution can be credited with doing - anything goes. If we had a way 
>>>>>>> of 
>>>>>>> immediately detecting which mosquitoes carried malaria, that would make 
>>>>>>> perfect sense. If we could intuitively tell fungus were edible in the 
>>>>>>> forest, that would make sense too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> That distinction may explain the  consideration of natural 
>>>>>>>> disasters as teleological: For example earthquakes or storms: The 
>>>>>>>> stress 
>>>>>>>> response necessary to react against these phenomena make them much 
>>>>>>>> more 
>>>>>>>> similar to teleological plans of unknown agents than  mere accidents. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The study shows the opposite though. It shows that we specifically 
>>>>>>> and immediately discern the intentional from the unintentional. The top 
>>>>>>> priority is making that distinction.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hence, it is no surprise that the  natural disasters are considered 
>>>>>>>> as teleological  and moral . For example, as deliberated acts of the 
>>>>>>>> goods 
>>>>>>>> against the corruption of the people, or currently, the response of 
>>>>>>>> "the 
>>>>>>>> planet" against the aggression of the immorally rich countries that 
>>>>>>>> deplete 
>>>>>>>> the resources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not a bad hypothesis, but I see the more plausible explanation 
>>>>>>> being that by default consciousness is tuned to read meta-personal 
>>>>>>> (super-signifying) meanings as well as personal and sub-personal 
>>>>>>> (logical) 
>>>>>>> meanings. Except for the last few centuries among Western cultures, 
>>>>>>> human 
>>>>>>> consciousness has been universally tuned to the world as animistic and 
>>>>>>> teleological. The normal state of human being is to interpret all 
>>>>>>> events 
>>>>>>> that one experiences as a reflection on one's own efforts, thoughts, 
>>>>>>> etc. 
>>>>>>> This is why religion is such an easy sell to this day. By default, we 
>>>>>>> are 
>>>>>>> superstitious, not necessarily out of evolution, but out of the nature 
>>>>>>> of 
>>>>>>> consciousness itself. Superstition is one of the ways that the psyche 
>>>>>>> detects larger, more diffuse ranges of itself. Intuition taps into 
>>>>>>> longer 
>>>>>>> views of the present - larger 'nows', but at the cost of logic and 
>>>>>>> personal 
>>>>>>> significance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More on the failure of HADD here: http://s33light.org/post/**14998**
>>>>>>> 04865 <http://s33light.org/post/1499804865>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I submit that this Hyperactive Agency Detection Device is a weak 
>>>>>>> hypothesis for explaining the subjective bias of subjectivity. *To 
>>>>>>> me, it makes more sense that religion originates not as mistaken agency 
>>>>>>> detection, but rather as an exaggerated or magnified reflection of its 
>>>>>>> source, a subjective agent*. Human culture is nothing if not 
>>>>>>> totemic. Masks, puppets, figurative drawings, voices and gestures, 
>>>>>>> sculpture, drama, dance, song, etc reflect the nature of subjectivity 
>>>>>>> itself - it抯 expression of character and creating stories with them. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/**ms**g/everything-list/-/**kWPAfLJdm1**
>>>>>>> EJ <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kWPAfLJdm1EJ>.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>>>>>> googlegroups.**com. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>>>>> group**/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Alberto.
>>>>>>
>>>>>  -- 
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/*
>>>>> *msg/everything-list/-/**FYDu8tOgYScJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FYDu8tOgYScJ>.
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Alberto.
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TQH5ODB8QiEJ.
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>>> For more options, visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>>  -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>>> For more options, visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/hDK6j1-sv60J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.

Reply via email to