Hi Gregory,
I thought I would address the other portions of your latest reply.
You say that once human-making is involved, the metaphor ‘evolution’ becomes nonsensical. I’m not sold on this. Think of evolution as a computer program. The program itself has no intent, no plan, and no purpose. Yet the computer program can very well carry out the intent, plan, and purpose of the designer. In fact, come to think of it, humans have made programs that evolve solutions.
Finally, you write:
“I guess my field of study keeps me always in the realm of embodied and actually (i.e. provable) existing actors or agents, or ‘minds,’ if you will, and thus I find it far fetched to travel beyond the bounds of what is undoubtedly there to the kind of un-provable or speculative mind/Mind (natural or divine) that you are envisaging. You seem not to be hindered by the constraints that I am confronted with in human-social thought; in whatever realm(s) you speak in. Though perhaps I am misreading you and hinting at a sci-fi/bunny thread that is not actually there.”
I ask myself a simple question – if life was indeed designed, could we ever recognize this historical fact by always remaining "in the realm of embodied and actually (i.e. provable) existing actors or agents, or ‘minds," No. Thus, might the very rules of your approach function to unintentionally game the system such that the output is not truly open-ended? Yes, I am indeed willing to tap into the imaginative and creative parts of my brain to think thoughts that are unconventional. It has allowed me to uncover and notice patterns that I would not have noticed with the constraints you impose. The way I see it, I have long ago purchased this epistemic right when I publicly observed that my design speculations are not science (after all, no one has yet to make the case that, if life was designed, science itself cold detect this). If my intellectual hobby and speculations are not science, it is silly to criticize them for not conforming to the rules of science. You may as well criticize your mechanic for not wearing a suit and tie.
- Mike Gene
Hi Gregory,
Your suggestion of the label ‘neo-intelligent design’ theorist is interesting, although I would probably steer clear from it as it conveys the impression that my views about intelligent design have significantly changed. Of course, the term ‘intelligent design’ has taken on a distinct cultural connotation given that most were introduced to the topic because of the socio-political dimension, and since this is beyond my control, your suggestion is somewhat attractive.
I do indeed think of design as a forward-looking concept and this emphasis shows itself most clearly in my front-loading hypotheses. But it’s difficult for me to drop the SETI and sci-fi crowd because the type of design life exhibits (if it is indeed design) represents itself as form of carbon-based nanotechnology far more sophisticated and advanced than anything humans have historically or can currently design. Yet there is a connection. I would argue that a history of human design shows at least three basic trends among human artefacts: they have become smaller, they have become more complex, and they have become more autonomous. The three trends then converge on what we call ‘life.’ That’s why I say that looking at the cell is like looking at the future of our own designs.
You note that “Nothing human-made ‘evolves’ into being or having become.” But again, I would add the qualifier ‘yet.’ The reason why nothing human-made ‘evolves’ into being is because our designs are so primitive. To this date, most of our designs satisfy our selfish desires. We design things either to bring attention to ourselves or to make money. We can begin to envision design beyond these primitive constraints if we begin to envision a future where humanity designs bioengineered and synthetic life forms in order to terraform other planets. In such a case, the ability to evolve may become important, which means the ability to control evolution will likewise become important. Yet here we still find a selfish angle, as such terraforming might be necessary for the survival of humanity. So perhaps we can step out further and imagine selfless design. At that point, design might begin to interface more deeply with theology.
As for who or what would be ‘rigging evolution,’ an investigation can only detect another mind that would be at least semi-recognizable by our own minds. As I have said, recognizing design is akin to recognizing another mind. That’s why it carries the significant risk of a false positive – because what we think we see is what our own minds put there. This necessary subjective element is also the primary reason why intelligent design is not science.
As for starting a new thread comparing EAM with front-loading, I don’t sense much interest for that around here and I have errands to turn to. Perhaps on a rainy or snowy day….
- Mike Gene
Hi Mike,
Let me first say that I really appreciate how it seems we are engaging in a more communalistic tone, by which I mean keeping to a common standard of respect in our conversation. Not that a kind of competitive (sportsperson-ship) spirit was lacking in the past, trying to score blogger points. But that now in front of a ‘home audience’ the importance of maintaining a dignified tone seems more important. Well, at least that’s how I see it, don’t know about you. :)
I am quite intrigued that you think of ‘design’ as a forward-looking concept. With this, of course, I wholeheartedly agree as it embodies a type of creativity that is easily observable across a range of academic, professional and applied fields. Engineering is just one of those, however, it is perhaps most easily visible in the sense that engineers undoubtedly do ‘design’ things. This would be where I could take the label ‘neo-intelligent design’ theorist, as a human-social scientist, though none that I am aware of have suggested such a thing. There are nevertheless other words to describe what such people as engineers, programmers, architects, artists (i.e. better to just basically drop the SETI and sci-fi crowd!), et al. are doing; the fact remains that ‘design’ seems to be an adequate metaphor to (communicatively) signify such actions.
Mike writes: “I would thus change the sentence to read, ‘human minds don’t do this yet’.”
With the qualifier ‘yet’ that you add, I just don’t see it. And I say this as a human-social scientist/scholar to your position (so it seems) as a natural scientist/theorist. Again, I return to the basic grammatical observation / philosophical proposition: “Nothing human-made ‘evolves’ into being or having become.” You still have not faced this head-on and I find it significant.
Once human-making is involved, the metaphor ‘evolution’ becomes nonsensical, i.e. ‘evolution’ does not belong in this realm; it is a contradiction in terms. You cannot ‘intend’ to do something ‘without intention.’ You cannot ‘plan’ while acting ‘without a plan.’ You cannot posit that ‘evolution has a purpose’ when ‘the biological theory of evolution denies purpose’ (at least according to Darwin and many ‘neo-Darwinists,’ if not TEs and ECs). You cannot guide evolution (artificially) without knowing it! Maybe this is, to try a bio-physical example, like to the expression: you can’t tickle yourself. : 0 )
The keenest discussion of this that I’ve come across is perhaps Robert Merton’s paper on “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action” (1936). Yet in today’s circumstances his argument is quite feeble. Post-evolutionary human-social thought (which many sociologists will deny yet exists!), you heard it here first, is already ripe on the 21st century scholarly horizon.
Mike Gene writes: “can a designer implant choices/decisions into the process of evolution? That’s the question that intrigues me. “
Your response, and reading your essay on Church-in-the-Matrix, certainly planted a few seeds for my self-reflection over the meaning of evolution as you see it. I’m not sure what ‘implant’ means or how a ‘choice/decision’ could be ‘implanted.’ I’m reminded of the film “The Matrix” wherein those who are ‘plugged-in’ are given a ‘choice’ and that the majority of people choose to remain in the dream world, rather than to enter the real world (“Welcome to the desert of the real world!” – Morpheus/Baudrillard).
I guess my field of study keeps me always in the realm of embodied and actually (i.e. provable) existing actors or agents, or ‘minds,’ if you will, and thus I find it far fetched to travel beyond the bounds of what is undoubtedly there to the kind of un-provable or speculative mind/Mind (natural or divine) that you are envisaging. You seem not to be hindered by the constraints that I am confronted with in human-social thought; in whatever realm(s) you speak in. Though perhaps I am misreading you and hinting at a sci-fi/bunny thread that is not actually there.
You write: “evolution can be rigged to reach certain objectives”
By this, I take it of course that you mean ‘biological evolution.’ Yet I find it difficult to conceive or imagine who or what would be ‘rigging evolution,’ i.e. that which must exist outside of evolution, thus in a state transcendent rather than immanent. Are you not just speaking of artificial-human selection? The topic you raise of ‘artificial selectors’ seems to beg the question.
Maybe you could start a thread here at ASA about how your approach differs from Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis (EAM), which likely few if any on this list have ever even heard about, but which you are carefully exposed to and aware of. Otherwise, yet again, I find the instrumental usage of ‘evolution’ problematic in the sense that minds do not “use evolution to carry out an objective.” At least, not any minds that we know from experience (i.e. human minds).
Indeed, human minds certainly do ‘design’ things, but they cannot logically ‘evolve’ things.
Warm regards,
Gregory
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 15 18:08:59 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 15 2008 - 18:08:59 EST