X-Message-Number: 5341
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: Teleology
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 23:37:34 +1100 (EST)

John Clark writes,

>Cars and even present day computers are poor analogies for DNA. 

Yes - that's why I didn't use them as analogies for DNA. I used them as 
analogies for living creatures. I used bits and internal combustion as
analogies for DNA.

>DNA can reproduce itself without the aid 
>of intelligence, cars and up to this point computers, can not. One thing is 
>absolutely essential for Evolution to work, and that is a reproduction 
>system.

Under some circumstances, we can now reproduce DNA through analog
processes. In the wild, however, such processes do not generally
suffice. DNA generally requires intelligence, in the form of one or another
phenotype, in order to be passed along. As to whether you can or cannot
regard the manufacture of cars and computers as a reproductive process,
I'll leave that to the makers of dictionaries.

>"Purpose" in this context means, what something does, how it 
>got to be the way it is, and most important of all, what is being maximized. 
>It's  easier to just use the word "purpose". I'm surprised I have to explain 
>this to you. Be honest, did you REALLY think that Richard Dawkins, of all 
>people, the same man who  wrote " The Selfish Gene " and " The Extended 
>Phenotype", was a believer in teleology and assigned purpose to evolution?! 

Do I expect him to believe in teleology? No. Do I think that his
statement is teleological? In fact it would be wise for me to hold my
tongue at this point, as I haven't read the article in question -
Scientific American takes a month or two to make it down here. However ...

Perhaps John is right that he's just waving his hands here, but when
Dawkins asserts that human happiness, or it's lack, is directly affected
by whether or not that human has followed the purpose encoded in their
DNA, then I think that teleology is the right word for this.  Counter-
examples are so common that I hardly need to point them out - hell, if
this argument were based on science, every Gay person in the world
should be miserable!  I don't think that such a conjecture can be
regarded in an empirical light, and so I have to regard it as a
philosophical notion - and the best term I know for a philosophy based
on the idea of innate purpose is teleology. But perhaps someone with
a bigger dictionary can correct me.

Peter Merel.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5341