tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post6186181574495143168..comments2024-01-22T11:42:42.772+08:00Comments on FideCogitActio : omnis per gratiam: The eyes have it…Codgitator (Cadgertator)http://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post-61126222032743575362009-11-17T13:03:49.236+08:002009-11-17T13:03:49.236+08:00unBe:
The verbal intricacies and methodological ...unBe: <br /><br />The verbal intricacies and methodological nuances of a theory are one thing; the realities to which they relate are another. Linguistics gets along fine without a reference to meaning--a teleological principle--in theory, but that hardly negates the existence of meaning in reality. Even formal semantics does not need to refer to meaning in actual speech, since it can be theorized as mere operations in an "ideal natural language." Likewise, the theoretical avoidance of the term/concept of "purpose" in the theory of natural selection does not negate the existence of teleology in the organisms subject to natural selection. NS need not "foresee" the best results for a genetic population or a single member of a species, but the vital dynamics of those populations and specimens operate according to teleological principles. Otherwise--though this is never a conscious reflection or motive on their parts--NS will "weed them out." Pressure in an open system is an intrinsically directed phenonmenon. Selection pressure is no different over time. <br /><br />In any case, what is DNA if not substance instrincally ordered towards the production of certain proteins, tissues, organs, etc.? Our ability to recognize "mutations" is based on our synchronic grasp of the norm from which mutations are deviations, just as a physician's grasp of "illness" presupposes a form/norm around which "health" gravitates. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post-80597190991812084942009-11-17T12:41:12.651+08:002009-11-17T12:41:12.651+08:00"which results in the animal out reproducing ..."which results in the animal out reproducing those without the mutation."<br /><br />There is no need to import the notion of purpose in order for natural selection to proceed.<br /><br />I have seen this sort of confusion before. "Natural Selection" is a description of a process that occurs and that we observe. It has no purpose.<br /> <br />This is old territory for us.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post-58017957378800757092009-11-17T12:30:38.659+08:002009-11-17T12:30:38.659+08:00unBe:
"Better," "more efficiently...unBe: <br /><br />"Better," "more efficiently," "avoid," and "results in" are all teleological terms. Better with respect to what value or goal? More efficiently towards what ideal performance? Avoid rather than pursue for what purpose? Result in what natural end? Superiority, efficiency, directionality, and terminal causation all include and presuppose a norm. You keep assuming that finality has to be conscious to be real, but Aristotle explicitly denies this. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post-25528891386082297142009-11-17T00:15:17.908+08:002009-11-17T00:15:17.908+08:00I have a meta-critique and a regular critique.
Me...I have a meta-critique and a regular critique.<br /><br />Meta: It would be helpful to your readers if you summed up your posts. That is, state clearly your point.<br /><br />I can't tease out the point of this post.<br /><br />Barr wrote:<br /><br />"Why does natural selection favor this mutation but not that one? Because this one makes the eye see better in some way, which serves the purpose of helping the creature find food or mates or avoid predators, which in turn serves the purpose of helping the animal to live and reproduce."<br /><br />Uh, no.<br /><br />How does natural selection favor this mutation but not that one? Because this mutation makes the eye see better in some way, which causes the creature to more efficiently find food, mate, or avoid predation, which results in the animal out reproducing those without the mutation.<br /><br />Importing the notion of purpose is gratuitous.<br /><br />Darwinian mechanisms proceed without so-called final causes. Sure, you can fasten this notion on to selection, but it's completely superfluous. Scientists have no need for that hypothesis. It adds nothing to our understanding.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.com