Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V Torek)
Newsgroups: net.bio,net.origins,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: the Goal of evolution
Message-ID: <1494@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-May-86 21:21:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1494
Posted: Tue May 13 21:21:25 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 15-May-86 06:25:56 EDT
References: <487@bcsaic.UUCP> <1002@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V Torek)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 22
Xref: linus net.bio:323 net.origins:3070 net.philosophy:4913

In article <1382@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>Let me change the semantics here a bit.  "Evolution" per se has no goals;
>but I think it makes sense to say that the species which are evolving  do
>have a goal: to survive.  (And the individuals of the species have the more
>complex goal of perpetuating their genes.)

Not me.  Not my cat.  Not most animals, I'll wager.

>  I am inclined to agree that
>understanding is necessary in order to have goals; but I think
>the genetic information in the DNA does constitute a rudimentary kind
>of understanding.  (Very rudimentary, if we compare it to a human's
>understanding; but perhaps not so bad compared to a cockroach's.  I
>have no problem ascribing goals to a cockroach.)

DNA codes information, in a sense, but that seems to me about all you can
say.  Cockroaches probably have goals, but then they probably have
(rudimentary) minds; DNA doesn't seem to be built the right way to have
either.  Also, a cockroach can compare its perceptions to its goals and
figure out whether things are going the way it wants them to -- can DNA?

--Paul Torek						umcp-cs!flink