Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"

"It makes no sense to speak of 'a mind using evolution to carry out an objective'." - G. Arago 
 
"I don't think we are on the same page, as an idea that makes no sense to you makes a lot of sense to me.  Minds enlist and recruit all sorts of processes to carry out objectives.  For example, the Casino owner uses games of chance to carry out the objective of making a profit.  Or, to offer a more relevant hypothetical, I have no trouble envisioning minds using evolution to carry out the objective of terraforming a planet.  Or carefully choosing the structure/architecture of life such that a nervous system was likely to evolve into existence." - Mike Gene
 
Glad to have the discussion move into this realm. Let me address your concerns Mike, and I want to stress the importance of communication here, e.g. what people mean when they use a word, concept or idea. The biology is not as important for me as the communication.

You say: "Minds enlist and recruit all sorts of processes to carry out objectives."
 
We are agreed.
 
Then you write: "the Casino owner uses games of chance to carry out the objective of making a profit."
 
Yes and no. Surely you are not suggesting that 'evolution' is synonymous with 'games of chance'? The Casino owner intentionally, purposefully, with a plan and goal (e.g. profit) uses games of chance that take time to play. I'm afraid you are confusing 'it happened' (the Casino's operational history, in this case not natural, but human-social history) with 'it evolved.' Due to the inclusion of intention, purpose, plan and goal, whereas in the meaning of 'biological evolution' there is no intention, purpose, plan or goal, what the Casino owner does is not and should not be called 'evolution.' His is not an example of 'a mind using evolution to carry out an objective.' He is just using games of chance, or lottery, raffle, drawing lots, etc. to achieve a goal. To be clear, as it seems the following was your main point, Mike, I'm surely not denying that games of chance exist and are used.
 
Further, Mike writes: "to offer a more relevant hypothetical, I have no trouble envisioning minds using evolution to carry out the objective of terraforming a planet."
 
Actually, I find this much less relevant as it is higly speculative and there is no evidence of this having happened. Which 'minds' do you have in mind here Mike? Please be specific. Thought experiments belong in philosophy; in science you should do other experiments too. Have you done any other experiments than a thought experiment (i.e. what you call a 'relevant hypothetical) to support your position?
 
That you have no trouble envisioning (or imagining) such a scenario does not mean there is any truth to it. If you are speculating about human minds, however, and suggesting the possibility that at some time in the hypothetical future our technology *may* allow us to travel to another planet, i.e. to 'terraform' it, then I can see the point. You would be taking the perspective of a person that is known to exist, speaking futuristically about the dreams of some actual human scientists to transform the universe by leaving planet Earth. But not if you would take the perspective and place the mental agency in unembodied, unspecified beings/creatures/aliens, something way-far hypothetical; there is no explanatory power in such a point of view.
 
As for the Casino owner, I can walk down the street and find an actual person fitting this description, an example of this. I can thus 'prove' a Casino owner uses his or her mind to carry out an objective using games of chance. But, as I've argued, there's nothing 'evolutionary' about the choices he or she makes; i.e. in making things. In your view, 'evolution' is an instrument that can be used or it is just 'natural history' as history 'unfolds'. In my view, as a social-humanitarian scientist, it is an ideology that can be abused to try to account for things in which it makes no sense to apply the term 'evolution' or the verb 'to evolve.' In biology, evolution seems (at least to me, a non-biologist) to be fine, but not when it comes to minds (and we are almost always talking about human beings when we speak of minds).
 
"Or carefully choosing the structure/architecture of life such that a nervous system was likely to evolve into existence."
 
Again, Mike, it does me no help to understand what you are suggesting here. Which 'mind/Mind' is 'carefully choosing'? If you cannot respond to this, then there is no reason to accept that we are talking about the same thing. I believe RBH struck an important note about this to Telic Thoughts with his 'multiple designer theory' - and his was an anthropic perspective too!
 
Thus, my conclusion:
 
Human minds do use all sorts of processes, just not evolutionary ones. Human selection and natural selection are fundamentally different things (which ties into my response to Jim's comment).
 
G. Arago
  __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 6 03:50:39 2008