Why is the Human Body Designed to Die?

[stevevw]

I know, I just wanted to point out that I'd already answered it.

I know; I was saying that there are problems in how to interpret this.

There's the problem of conflating what we judge to be purposive and goal-directed behaviour with intentional behavior. Both purpose and goal-direction are attributions based on observation, and goal-directed behaviour can be programmed or even simply mechanical. So it's easy to use the intentional stance, but not easy to say whether there's really intent in a behaviour. "Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought." Wikipedia

This is why I was emphasising the point in the articles that described creatures as actively engaging and constructing their niche or behaving in a specific way which was non-random and purposive that brought a benefit. It was an 'act' in terms of 'acting to do something' of self benefit rather than being robotically programmed to do something.

Like humans creatures don’t just blindly act. They know and understand the options and whether it will be of benefit or not which points to intention and setting the direction of evolution rather than being a passive player dictated by some outside process acting on them.

CONSTRUCTING 'ON PURPOSE': HOW NICHE CONSTRUCTION AFFECTS NATURAL SELECTION
Organisms actively modify and choose components of their environments.
organisms regulate the experienced environment through their activities (whether by constructing components of their local environments or by choosing suitable resources).
https://ca1-tls.edcdn.com/Programme...pose-28-29-June-2021.pdf?mtime=20210517162038

Organisms become (at best) vehicles for genes, battered about by the vagaries of the environment. Situated Darwinism, by contrast, takes organisms as the central business of biology. And organisms are active, intentional. organisms are not mere objects of evolutionary forces. They are agents of evolutionary change. In pursuing their goals, in negotiating their affordance landscapes, in constructing their conditions of existence, organisms enact evolution (241).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-017-9585-z

For example, when a plant grows towards the light and turns its leaves to follow the sun, we can describe that behaviour as purposive (follow the light) and goal-directed (maximise incident light), but is it intentional? No, it's just a chemical tropism. It's like a reflex - when you touch a hot stove by mistake and your hand jerks away, the purpose is get away from the heat source, and the goal is to avoid further damage. Is there intent? no, it's just a reflex.

As opposed to say a creatures that chooses to sit in the light as it gives them a source of energy or comfort etc. Plants may be different to other creatures that have brains. For one thing they are sessile organisms so cannot move to another environment. But they do have a fomr of niche construction through developmental plasticity (changes in response to environmental cues).

But for most other creatures they can think about their situation and make changes accordingly. In regards to the hot stove there may be a programmed reaction but there is also the conscious response. Creatures can feel they have been burnt and experience life which can also lead to changes in behaviour. They have experienced the pain of being burnt and can avoid it.

If it wasn't for conscious experience and everything was just reations then we would have chaos. Some even say that all life including plants have a conscious experience. This is about behaviour, culture and morality and seems to go beyond the programmed mechanistic explanations and is something evolution theory finds hard to address and yet needs to incorporate if its to be a comprehensive theory.

all living organisms sense and move in their environment purposefully, for their individual benefit; the sensorimotor system is at the root of animal cognition and consciousness (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; McNeill, 2005; Sheets-Johnstone, 2011; Trevarthen & Delafield-Butt, 2017).
Agency and Choice in Evolution

I argue that the evolution of teleological behaviour was driven by the evolution of learning and that many patterns of evolution since the Cambrian explosion can be explained only if evolution through conscious choice is assumed.
https://ca1-tls.edcdn.com/Programme...pose-28-29-June-2021.pdf?mtime=20210517162038

In such cases, we can attribute goals and purposes to those behaviours because we identify an entity with some degree of agency (an agent) that benefits, and it's clear that intent is not involved and not even an internal program is required.

We can even attribute purposes and goals to morphological features, e.g. birds have wings - purpose: flight; goal: maximise aerial mobility. Sycamore seeds also have wings - purpose: gliding; goal: maximise spatial distribution.

But when it comes to creatures with brains, it becomes more difficult. Simple brains permit more refined, complex, and flexible behaviours, storage of information allows learning from experience, and so-on. Note that all these features can be the result of an internal 'program'. If more flexible responses are advantageous, they will be selected for.

Even if we attribute this to a mechanistic program it doesn’t explain the creatures behaviours which can be about non-genetic programming of phenotypes (wings). It doesnt explain how creatures actively engage in life and their own evolution through behaviour and goal directed and purposeful choices and actions.

Plus according to the articles I linked even programmed outcomes of evolution may be teleological. What we see is that evolution is more directed and with purpose than what Darwinian theory claims. As opposed to the blind and random process of Neo-Darwinism evolution seems to produce only certain non-random outcomes. Creatures have a certain amount of plasticity so they can adapt to environmental pressures in beneficial and well suited ways. This is far from the Standard view that suppose to have no purpose, no goals and meaning.

However, no clear distinction can be drawn, from behavioural observation alone, between complex flexible behaviours that we judge to be purposive and goal-directed, and complex flexible behaviours that we judge to be purposive, goal-directed, and intentional.

We certainly know that humans have intentions in their decisions and actions on how best to live and what will give upo a better chance to survive. So if humans are the product of evolution then we already we have evidence that evolution has purpose and intention. But according to the research we can do studies to determine if non-human creatures have goal directed and intentional behaviour and it seems they do.

We certainly observe elements of forward-looking (intentional?) thinking in other animals. For example, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans (at least) are able to think ahead, plan, and select tools for later use (Mulcahy and Call 2006; Ruiz and Santos 2013).
Experimental evidence strongly indicates that even rats grasp underlying cause-and-effect relationships and plan accordingly (Blaisdell et al. 2006).
Teleology’s long shadow | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text

Are people and apes the only ones that can plan ahead?
Corvid scientists contended such behaviour proved some birds have a cognitive awareness of what others might know or intend, as well as the ability to plan for future consequences.
“These results suggest that planning for the future is not uniquely human and evolved independently in distantly related species to address common problems.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-can-plan-ahead-quoth-the-raven-nevermore/

Further, there is also no reason why complex intentional behaviours can not be the result of an internal program. Just as it is possible to use the intentional stance to describe a simple tropism, so it is possible to describe even human behaviour (excluding only consciousness) - in terms of internal programming (e.g. computational neuroscience).

I am glad you said excluding consciousness. But it seems that animals may have consciousness as well. This aspect is something a programmed view of evolution cannot explain. It involves feeling and subjective ways of seeing the world which incorporate behaviours associated with placing values on things and behaving accordingly. Sometimes acting in contradiction to adaptive evolution.

But primarily the programmed view of evolution makes life robotic which we know is not the case. This view forces all explanation to be mechanical, trying to explain everything in adaptive terms where creatures are passive and acted upon by some outside force changing them to fit environments. When we know now from the evidence that creatures are active agents engaging in life and evolution changing themselves and their environments to suit them.

Nature (natural selection) cannot do anything. Its just a mechanistic description of what is happening. NS needs variation to be already there and much of that variation is generated non-randomly so it can direct what NS can and cannot do. But more importantly the actual force for change in evolution is the creature itself and not some inaminate descriptor like natural selection.

Having got all that out of the way - regardless of how we attribute purposiveness, goal-directedness, and intentionality to the products of evolution, evolution is not an entity with agency, it is a physical process; as such it has no purpose or goal and cannot gain benefit or advantage. Like all natural processes, it has a direction but is not directed. It has no mental states, so it doesn't have intent.

That's yer lot.

Yes I agree, if we use mutation for variation which is random and natural selection which is blind to what benefits a creature and its offspring then it’s not going to have any rhythm or reason. When you say natural selection is not directed that is not true.

This once again takes the standard view that all change is programmed (genetic blueprint) and makes creatures passive robots not playing any part in evolution. When they do it is because of past adaptive evolution i.e. natural selection.

But this view leaves out a major part of what happens. As mentioned creatures are actively engaged in making choices and changes in goal directed ways. They are agents and they control and direct evolution. Thus a big part of how natural selection directs evolution is not because it has direction but because it is directed by the creatures themselves.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is why I was emphasising the point in the articles that described creatures as actively engaging and constructing their niche or behaving in a specific way which was non-random and purposive that brought a benefit. It was an 'act' in terms of 'acting to do something' of self benefit rather than being robotically programmed to do something.

Like humans creatures don’t just blindly act. They know and understand the options and whether it will be of benefit or not which points to intention and setting the direction of evolution rather than being a passive player dictated by some outside process acting on them.

CONSTRUCTING 'ON PURPOSE': HOW NICHE CONSTRUCTION AFFECTS NATURAL SELECTION
Organisms actively modify and choose components of their environments.
organisms regulate the experienced environment through their activities (whether by constructing components of their local environments or by choosing suitable resources).
https://ca1-tls.edcdn.com/Programme...pose-28-29-June-2021.pdf?mtime=20210517162038

Organisms become (at best) vehicles for genes, battered about by the vagaries of the environment. Situated Darwinism, by contrast, takes organisms as the central business of biology. And organisms are active, intentional. organisms are not mere objects of evolutionary forces. They are agents of evolutionary change. In pursuing their goals, in negotiating their affordance landscapes, in constructing their conditions of existence, organisms enact evolution (241).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-017-9585-z

As opposed to say a creatures that chooses to sit in the light as it gives them a source of energy or comfort etc. Plants may be different to other creatures that have brains. For one thing they are sessile organisms so cannot move to another environment. But they do have a fomr of niche construction through developmental plasticity (changes in response to environmental cues).

But for most other creatures they can think about their situation and make changes accordingly. In regards to the hot stove there may be a programmed reaction but there is also the conscious response. Creatures can feel they have been burnt and experience life which can also lead to changes in behaviour. They have experienced the pain of being burnt and can avoid it.

If it wasn't for conscious experience and everything was just reations then we would have chaos. Some even say that all life including plants have a conscious experience. This is about behaviour, culture and morality and seems to go beyond the programmed mechanistic explanations and is something evolution theory finds hard to address and yet needs to incorporate if its to be a comprehensive theory.

all living organisms sense and move in their environment purposefully, for their individual benefit; the sensorimotor system is at the root of animal cognition and consciousness (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; McNeill, 2005; Sheets-Johnstone, 2011; Trevarthen & Delafield-Butt, 2017).
Agency and Choice in Evolution

I argue that the evolution of teleological behaviour was driven by the evolution of learning and that many patterns of evolution since the Cambrian explosion can be explained only if evolution through conscious choice is assumed.
https://ca1-tls.edcdn.com/Programme...pose-28-29-June-2021.pdf?mtime=20210517162038

Even if we attribute this to a mechanistic program it doesn’t explain the creatures behaviours which can be about non-genetic programming of phenotypes (wings). It doesnt explain how creatures actively engage in life and their own evolution through behaviour and goal directed and purposeful choices and actions.

Plus according to the articles I linked even programmed outcomes of evolution may be teleological. What we see is that evolution is more directed and with purpose than what Darwinian theory claims. As opposed to the blind and random process of Neo-Darwinism evolution seems to produce only certain non-random outcomes. Creatures have a certain amount of plasticity so they can adapt to environmental pressures in beneficial and well suited ways. This is far from the Standard view that suppose to have no purpose, no goals and meaning.

We certainly know that humans have intentions in their decisions and actions on how best to live and what will give upo a better chance to survive. So if humans are the product of evolution then we already we have evidence that evolution has purpose and intention. But according to the research we can do studies to determine if non-human creatures have goal directed and intentional behaviour and it seems they do.

We certainly observe elements of forward-looking (intentional?) thinking in other animals. For example, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans (at least) are able to think ahead, plan, and select tools for later use (Mulcahy and Call 2006; Ruiz and Santos 2013).
Experimental evidence strongly indicates that even rats grasp underlying cause-and-effect relationships and plan accordingly (Blaisdell et al. 2006).
Teleology’s long shadow | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text

Are people and apes the only ones that can plan ahead?
Corvid scientists contended such behaviour proved some birds have a cognitive awareness of what others might know or intend, as well as the ability to plan for future consequences.
“These results suggest that planning for the future is not uniquely human and evolved independently in distantly related species to address common problems.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-can-plan-ahead-quoth-the-raven-nevermore/

I am glad you said excluding consciousness. But it seems that animals may have consciousness as well. This aspect is something a programmed view of evolution cannot explain. It involves feeling and subjective ways of seeing the world which incorporate behaviours associated with placing values on things and behaving accordingly. Sometimes acting in contradiction to adaptive evolution.

But primarily the programmed view of evolution makes life robotic which we know is not the case. This view forces all explanation to be mechanical, trying to explain everything in adaptive terms where creatures are passive and acted upon by some outside force changing them to fit environments. When we know now from the evidence that creatures are active agents engaging in life and evolution changing themselves and their environments to suit them.

Nature (natural selection) cannot do anything. Its just a mechanistic description of what is happening. NS needs variation to be already there and much of that variation is generated non-randomly so it can direct what NS can and cannot do. But more importantly the actual force for change in evolution is the creature itself and not some inaminate descriptor like natural selection.

Yes I agree, if we use mutation for variation which is random and natural selection which is blind to what benefits a creature and its offspring then it’s not going to have any rhythm or reason. When you say natural selection is not directed that is not true.

This once again takes the standard view that all change is programmed (genetic blueprint) and makes creatures passive robots not playing any part in evolution. When they do it is because of past adaptive evolution i.e. natural selection.

But this view leaves out a major part of what happens. As mentioned creatures are actively engaged in making choices and changes in goal directed ways. They are agents and they control and direct evolution. Thus a big part of how natural selection directs evolution is not because it has direction but because it is directed by the creatures themselves.

Once again, misunderstandings and misinterpretations distort the picture... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[VirOptimus]

Once again, misunderstandings and misinterpretations distort the picture... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You will never get anything else.

 

[stevevw]

Once again, misunderstandings and misinterpretations distort the picture... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So how can someone misunderstand a clear statement that says
creatures choose components of their environments or
organisms are active and intentional
In pursuing their goals, in negotiating their affordance landscapes, in constructing their conditions of existence, organisms enact evolution

and not conclude that this is talking about creatures choosing which way to act, organisms are intentional and by this they are influencing their own lives and evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

So how can someone misunderstand a clear statement that says
creatures choose components of their environments or
organisms are active and intentional
In pursuing their goals, in negotiating their affordance landscapes, in constructing their conditions of existence, organisms enact evolution

and not conclude that this is talking about creatures choosing which way to act, organisms are intentional and by this they are influencing their own lives and evolution.

Preaching ID again, how predictable.

 

[stevevw]

You will never get anything else.

VirOptimus jumps into the post to make his usual constructive engagement lol.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You will never get anything else.

So it seems. I sometimes find it a useful exercise to explain the misinterpretations & misunderstandings... but there's a limit.

 

[stevevw]

Preaching ID again, how predictable.

So can you name anything that I posted from ID. They are mainstream aricles as far as I can see. You need to support your claims.

 

[VirOptimus]

So can you name anything that I posted from ID. They are mainstream aricles as far as I can see. You need to support your claims.

You get the answers your posts merit from me.

I know your agenda and your dishonesty in quoting.

 

[stevevw]

So it seems. I sometimes find it a useful exercise to explain the misinterpretations & misunderstandings... but there's a limit.

So do you think humans have intentions and purpose in how they behave.

 

[stevevw]

You get the answers your posts merit from me.

I know your agenda and your dishonesty in quoting.

Even if that were true, what relevance is it. How does that negate things.

 

[VirOptimus]

Even if that were true, what relevance is it. How does that negate things.

That you dont understand this shows how ignorant you are about accademia and science.

 

[stevevw]

That you dont understand this shows how ignorant you are about accademia and science.

I do understand your view, that you think that if someone has a belief then anything they say is tainted by that belief and therefore you cannot trust what they say. Thats just a big logical fallacy. If it were true then all the great scientists who happen to believe Gods as creator and also do scientific work would be dismissed out of hand. Isnt that how it goes.

 

[VirOptimus]

I do understand your view, that you think that if someone has a belief then anything they say is tainted by that belief and therefore you cannot trust what they say. Thats just a big logical fallacy. If it were true then all the great scientists who happen to believe Gods as creator and also do scientific work on teleology in nature would be dismissed out of hand. Isnt that how it goes.

No, thats not my view or point.

But you put the cart before the horse which makes all your conclusions void.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So how can someone misunderstand a clear statement that says
creatures choose components of their environments or
organisms are active and intentional
In pursuing their goals, in negotiating their affordance landscapes, in constructing their conditions of existence, organisms enact evolution

and not conclude that this is talking about creatures choosing which way to act, organisms are intentional and by this they are influencing their own lives and evolution.

I explained that in my earlier post. It's partly a question of what is meant by 'intent' and which organisms have the capacity for explicit intent. The vast majority of living things don't even have a brain. Every creature influences evolution and its own life just by being part of the process.

I've said before that if you go looking for articles to support your preferred view, whatever it is, you'll find them; that's not science. Confirmation bias is the most commonly cited bias for good reason. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[stevevw]

No, thats not my view or point.

But you put the cart before the horse which makes all your conclusions void.

Not sure what you mean the cart before the horse.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So do you think humans have intentions and purpose in how they behave.

Yes, by the common meanings of those terms. But, as I said previously, 'purpose' (like 'function') is often used post-hoc, and often equivocated using the intentional or teleological stances.

'Intent' is generally understood to be a sophisticated cognitive process involving forethought and planning towards an explicit (envisaged) goal. Very few creatures are known to have such cognitive abilities. OTOH plenty of creatures have flexible sequences of behaviours that sum to provide a long-term advantage, and can be described as purposeful and goal-directed, but do not involve explicit cognitive forethought and long-term planning towards a goal.

 

[stevevw]

I explained that in my earlier post. It's partly a question of what is meant by 'intent' and which organisms have the capacity for explicit intent. The vast majority of living things don't even have a brain. Every creature influences evolution and its own life just by being part of the process.

I've said before that if you go looking for articles to support your preferred view, whatever it is, you'll find them; that's not science. Confirmation bias is the most commonly cited bias for good reason. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I did understand your explanation and agree that there can be confirmation bias. But that should not negate the possibility that there is intention and goal directed purpose in living things especially humans. It seemed you were automatically saying that the case is claosed and there is no possibility for a plain reading of the articles I linked.

That is why I then used humans as the example as this is a more straight forward way to see that at least for humans its hard to deny that they have intention, goal directed purpose and consciousness. So its harder to claim any bias. So if humans can have intention and purpose then its just a matter of proving that other creatures also are like humans.

That is what I thought I did with the papers that showed primates and birds as examples of being like humans in their intention and planning. Its a bit unfair to call that confirmation bias when its independent research.

The problem with denying intention, meaning and purpose especially when it comes to humans and trying to make out everything is the result of a program or that we only think we have intention and purpose and are fooling ourselves seems to go against what most people believe. If we really thought it was all a result of a program and we had no control then we would be in a mess. But life doesn't work that way as we have good reasons to have intention and purpose to our lives.

Intention and purpose in evolutio is part of a fundemental debate across all areas of science from physics, cosmology, psychology to the social sciences. People are debating what role behaviour, culture and consciousness plays in evolution and there are many out there that support these ideas.

So I dont think its really about any conformation bias. This can work both ways where some want to make evolution all about programms and mechanisms as well and throw out any talk of intention or purpose in evolution. So I think a reasonable position is the middle ground where we need to look at the evidence and be open to all possibilities.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, by the common meanings of those terms. But, as I said previously, 'purpose' (like 'function') is often used post-hoc, and often equivocated using the intentional or teleological stances.

'Intent' is generally understood to be a sophisticated cognitive process involving forethought and planning towards an explicit (envisaged) goal. Very few creatures are known to have such cognitive abilities. OTOH plenty of creatures have flexible sequences of behaviours that sum to provide a long-term advantage, and can be described as purposeful and goal-directed, but do not involve explicit cognitive forethought and long-term planning towards a goal.

Yes I agree. Genetic programming can produce certain results that seem like they have been directed towards an ends. A talented athlete can be a genetic disposition for that talent and this resulted in musch of their ability which they were programmed to have. But they also can contribute with choices about how they train and what they want to achieve. So its a combination of things. A bit like nuture and nature with some self regulation on top.

I just think its a bit unreal to discount intention and purpose altogether as we are not pre-programmed robots. This would mean we have no control or say in anything and are destined to be tossed and turned by whatever the underlying program has determined or not.

So I just want to clarify, as you keep saying that intention is often only an attribution it seems you are reluctant to give any creedance to at least humans having any forethought and planning towards an explicit (envisaged) goal. Which creatures do you think have this ability.

 

[stevevw]

It's crazy to think that after all the mutations throughout time, where even eyes, limbs, wings, etc, have evolved multiple times over, independent from one another, that not once, has a mutation come forth that allows everlasting life on earth.

Could it be just a coincidence that overpopulation would destroy life, and life just happens to limit itself...? Or is life truly intelligent at the micro-level? Or is there some cosmic force that dictates what mutations are allowed..?

First I don't think theres some cosmic force that dictates what mutations are allowed. BUt there are natural processes like development that only produce certain variations. Like for vertebrates two eyes at the front of the head and not 4 eyes or eyes in the back of the head which you would think would be an advantage.

So features like eyes and limbs ect didnt independently evolve like evolution had to stumble on these features randomly over and over. They all stem from the same genetic blueprint that more or less popped into existence relatively quick during the Cambrian period. Its just been a case of switching on and off and recombining pre-existing genetic programs.

So we have this universal genetic blueprint that is varied according to the different environments faced. It is a good working setup and provides life with the features needed. If random mutations are anything they are errors to that good working setup and why organisms have not gained eternal life but rather a deteriorating life.