Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.bio,net.origins,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: the Goal of evolution
Message-ID: <265@spar.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-May-86 20:16:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.265
Posted: Sun May 18 20:16:32 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 20-May-86 07:17:02 EDT
References: <487@bcsaic.UUCP> <1002@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Distribution: na
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 57
Xref: linus net.bio:346 net.origins:3090 net.philosophy:4967

> Paul Torek    >> Frank Adams

>>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.

    Are you seriously trying to tell us that most animals do not possess
    basic survival instincts?

    Just how would your cat behave if threatened by an aggressive dog?
    Would it just sit there and let the dog tear it to pieces? Does your
    cat fall asleep in the middle of busy traffic? When your cat is 
    hungry, does it not exhibit behavior that is directed towards the
    goal of finding and consuming food? And so on.. 

    If you were trying to tell us that most animals are not capable
    of reason, you wouldn't encounter any argument from me. But 
    it is pretty obvious that animal behavior is goal-directed,
    and that these goals are understandable in terms of their
    contribution to the animal's fitness to survive. 

>>  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?

    You say "DNA codes information, in a sense". Does that grudging
    concession imply that there is something inferior about the 
    DNA's information content? 
    
    By my account, human created information systems are vastly inferior
    to the richness and complexity of DNA-directed biological systems.
    You say that DNA doesn't seem to be built right to have goals?
    Whatever does DNA lack?

	..a physiological process or behavior.. owes its goal-directeness to
	the operation of a program... All the processes of individual
	development (ontogeny) as well as all seemingly goal-directed
	behaviors of individuals fall into this category, and are
	characterized by two components: they are guided by a program, and
	they depend on the existence of some endpoint or goal which is
	foreseen in the program regulating the behavior. The endpoint might
	be a structure, a physiological function, or a steady state. 
	- Ernst Mayr (The Growth of Biological Thought, 1982)

-michael